From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 11:06:46 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:06:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <4A73DF39.B4DAAA36@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Hugely popular would appear to be something of an understatement... According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has 480 MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and probably 50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the Internet! My guess as well is that the role of Skype as a "necessary" (public) service is rather greater in LDC's than in Developed Countries; among NGO's, non-profits and at the grassroots rather than for corporate communicators; and as part of the glue that makes globalization "for everyone else" (viz. the non-Walmarts of the world) work i.e. for national and international migrants, small export/import operators, non-tour based international travellers, conference goers, international volunteers and technical assistance workers etc.etc. Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... My guess is that if the socio-demography of users relying on it as a primary communications vehicle were skewed towards the other end of the income/influence pyramid legislators would be very actively looking at ways of maintaining it as a necessary public service... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:23 PM, To: Governance/IGC; Eric Dierker Cc: Parminder; Carlton Samuels; Roland Perry; Michael Gurstein; McTim Subject: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype All, Seems to me that Skype and it's original founders seem to wish to torpedo their own creation. That seems like a poor judgment to me and as such demonstrates rather weak leadership. See: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/07/31/0714232 "eBay is faced with the prospect of having to close down the hugely popular VoIP app Skype due to its reliance on proprietary code still owned by Skype's original founders, who are http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-2009 0731-e3qe.html threatening to pull the plug on the licensing agreement they have with eBay." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 1 11:20:18 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:20:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential > a service to be left to the market... Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; "stick to open standards". This is why I have always preferred to use SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor can lock up. If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 1 11:30:14 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:30:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> References: <4A73DF39.B4DAAA36@ix.netcom.com> <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Message-ID: [excessive cc: list trimmed] In message <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A at userPC>, at 08:06:46 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has 480 >MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and probably >50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the Internet! In the last couple of years I've seen the "number of users online" figure they publish on their user interface creep past 12 million, but that includes those who automatically load the application and then don't use it very often. I've seen some other figures which say eBay has 370 million accounts, but only 65 million are "active" (which they define as having made at least one transaction in the previous 12 months). How many "active" Skype accounts are there, and how would you define it? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Aug 1 11:38:43 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:38:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Message-ID: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work with VoIP. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Aug 1 11:41:57 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:41:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage > more people to switch to SIP providers. i used to run both, but SIP never did as decent a job. and most of the providers using SIP charged more. i believe in open source as much as possible, but when those providing service with OSS charge more then the proprietary providers, one has to wonder. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 12:23:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Message-ID: <182975.62345.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am quite sure you meant to say "Skype is too essential to be interfered with by government" --- On Fri, 7/31/09, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 4:15 PM On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... no > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or at > least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the > next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest > and introduce some means to ensure its survival? eBay spent 2.6 B USD on this thing...do you think they will actually shut it down? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Aug 1 12:28:14 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6F0B6E1834514EBE881795E52237C3AB@userPC> Sorry, I was just the messenger on the Skype subscribers numbers and have no idea of the ultimate source (the article came from the Bloomberg news service via Yahoo as I recall... M -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype [excessive cc: list trimmed] In message <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A at userPC>, at 08:06:46 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has >480 MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and >probably 50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the >Internet! In the last couple of years I've seen the "number of users online" figure they publish on their user interface creep past 12 million, but that includes those who automatically load the application and then don't use it very often. I've seen some other figures which say eBay has 370 million accounts, but only 65 million are "active" (which they define as having made at least one transaction in the previous 12 months). How many "active" Skype accounts are there, and how would you define it? -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 1 12:28:14 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: <71BF050FDC5948CE8C36751DF4BA9E37@userPC> Avri, (more musings on a sunny summer morning... I think that "too big to fail" actually refers to the failure being one that brings the entire system down... Which means in this instance I guess that the needs of the rich and the others may be so intertwined that a failure this massive would affect everyone (which in the case of Skype may be true since the rich have kids travelling internationally, servants using Skype to maintain family ties that might otherwise be put in jeapordy with unpredictable consequences, low cost producers of sub-assemblies in LDC's etc.etc. Hard to know... (and my experience and the experience of a bunch of folks that I know with SIP was similar to yours... (Part of the attraction of Skype is its ease and transparency of use... But then there is still the larger question of regulation for "essential services" in the electronic age Note: After the United States entered World War I in 1917, the country's railways proved inadequate to the task of supplying the nation's war effort. On December 26, 1917, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson nationalized most American railways under the Federal Possession and Control Act, creating the United States Railroad Administration (USRA), which took control of the railways on December 28, 1917. The USRA introduced several reforms to increase efficiency and reduce costs, including standardizing rolling stock and steam locomotive designs. The war ended in 1918, and on March 1, 1920, the railways were handed back to their original owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization#United_States So what would be the equivalent and the equivalent legislative structure in the age of the Internet--Maybe Skype is just the Western Pacific (or Canadian Pacific) of our era... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:39 AM To: Governance/IGC Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work with VoIP. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 13:11:19 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Message-ID: <894631.6522.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yes indeed, Open Standards. And if ICANN focused more on Standards than survival we would be much better off.   Skype is not the issue.  Innovation and consumer retention is the issue.  Absolutely no way in hell should the “govners” of the Internet begin to build robust socialistic preservation societies for private enterprise success stories.  No more sure way to kill them than that.  If there is a need and we prevent governed interference, the fittest and most dynamic model will excel.   Roland: Great point ---  sometimes larger corporate structures create a sideproduct that does not fit in with the overall funding motif of that structure – but the idea and product is so good it just plain flourishes (Once my mother described me as the youngest of six kids as being such a by product – fair nuf)  Perhaps time for Skype to grow up and move out on its own.   Joe:  Your recent comment that declares that the only governors of the Internet are end consumers, is proven here.  No matter how much ebay ignored Skype it grew (always remembering the ultimate flattery is imitation)   McTim: No! was the perfect response.  If governance is to help the people and indeed that is the noblest goal, our efforts toward subsidies, grants and access enhancement should be focused on doing for the disenfranchised or barred users.  It should be a pointed synergy to create access and reliability for those without. It should be to facilitate the useage of existing paradigms to enhance quality of life --  Not the enhancement or protection of the paradigms.   My choices both corporate and personal have been not focused so much on product but on the politics of use: In Vietnam we use the most expensive system  -  that facilitates us spending money on developing technologies and the people. If my wife sees our home bills I use the cheapest to promote tranquility.  In my mobile office we use a Packet 8 system right out of 1 Wilshire, and caged next to Yahoo.  I don’t like to be seen, but when my loved ones travel I insist on a Skype video concept so I can judge health and they can see home.  To Mexico it is all Vonage – seems to be politically correct and lowtech. (note the shameless plug for dotLOWTECH, a Dierker owned, Babtista designed TLD)   The only real shock about Skype is the shock some folks experience at watching how services grow and evolve. --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 3:20 PM On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a service to be left to the market... Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; "stick to open standards".  This is why I have always preferred to use SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor can lock up.  If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. --JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 14:14:43 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Open Ltr. to Babtista (obscenity) Message-ID: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I write in apology.  I suffered ill intentions toward your comments earlier this week. Without cause. In defense I read your posts in much hurry without reflection or empathy. I considered them ill mannered and in bad taste. I was wrong. It is the subjects and actions you criticize that are disgusting and ill mannered. Your proclamation of that is honorable. (if we use euphemism - saying Homo Erectus excrement, the unwise may not be warned against it -- if we label it SHIT -- we may spare them from disastrous disease) Cute, coy well mannered talk often masks real and present dangers, leading to suffering of our brothers.   A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing)   Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and       . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks against those who carry on the entrepreneurial spirit and succeed.  Their unabashed hatred and contempt for those who have the accident of being wealthy would make Marx - industrial proletariat revolution and Ho Chi Minh - agrarian proletariat revolution, blush, and it creates tyrants like Lenin and Pol Pot. The absolute ignorance of and disdain for free enterprise and freedom to fail and choice is truly abhorrent and obscene.  Their scary thinly veiled stated belief that we should turn the reins of technological development and user choice over to their kind of Crats is truly dangerous to society. That kind of hate speech should be censored here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Aug 1 16:29:53 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:29:53 +0200 Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... In-Reply-To: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <594E84F7-958A-4BBF-9CBE-98316DA2B079@psg.com> On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not > know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or > some such thing) > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria > and . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks ... > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice Potter Stewart (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] and some other definitions from: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate. Bertrand Russell Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the murk. Henry Miller Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, which it devours in secret. Percy Bysshe Shelley Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of art - or almost the only stuff. David Herbert Lawrence The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. Phyllis Schlafly You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, then that's obscenity. Roman Polanski Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Herbert Marcuse Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we know it when we see it. Jef I. Richards Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. William J. Brennan, Jr. at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always been partial to Marcuse. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 18:30:24 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Beauty beyond was;Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... Message-ID: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dearest Avri,   Your wisdom is given away by your words. A mix in my head of Bruni, Theresa, Sophia, and Golda.  You are as quick witted as ever Shakespeare could have been and piercing of the heart as Cleopatra must have been.  You are a person of great insight blended with passion and compassion.   Why then, when it comes to your actions in ICANN do you shrink like a waif not yet convicted of the worth of your hearfelt knowledge? Your stated disdain for the elites, by way of power, prestige and money do not jive with your lapdog approach to the GNSO. I swear sometimes you act as one trying to atone for guilt at not being worthy of your own opines.   Reinstate Joe and Jeff to the GA.  Make statements through actions of inclusion of the unwashed. Do not be satisfied in knowing your own heart but follow it in deed.   I am not ashamed of my affection for your brilliance and so any post to you in private may be made public, it is out of respect I do not shout from rooftops. From our first exchanges some years ago, I recognized and respected your gifts, I wish only for you to capitalize on them. Clearly I am a highwayman and rogue and not suited for association with one of your position.   Eric --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... To: "Governance/IGC List" Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 8:29 PM On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing) > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and       . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks ... > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice Potter Stewart  (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] and some other definitions from: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate. Bertrand Russell Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the murk. Henry Miller Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, which it devours in secret. Percy Bysshe Shelley Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of art - or almost the only stuff. David Herbert Lawrence The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. Phyllis Schlafly You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, then that's obscenity. Roman Polanski Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Herbert Marcuse Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we know it when we see it. Jef I. Richards Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. William J. Brennan, Jr. at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always been partial to Marcuse. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 1 18:45:33 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:45:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602 at acm.org>, at 17:38:43 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Avri Doria writes >one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core >piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient >compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering >themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? > >what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work >with VoIP. I'm wondering how many people use Skype to talk, and how many to exchange instant messages. My own usage is heavily biassed towards the instant messaging. -- 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 baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 1 22:15:24 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:15:24 -0400 Subject: Beauty beyond was;Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... In-Reply-To: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908011915h4b0ba577g4a19151d04735e5a@mail.gmail.com> I have been reinstated. I received some written gibberish from Avri this morning and then a complimentary ICANN you back on the list from Glen de Saint Géry - oley! But I don't thing Jeff Williams has been added back to the list. I just want to take a moment and thank you Eric for keeping this issue alive. And now that i am back on the GA list where I belong I assure you I will not let the issue die. What these clowns have participated in under the aupices of a U.S. government contract amounts to abuse and outright fraud. Shame. 24 hours to completly right this wrong. Avri if you please - initiate the reinstatement of Jeff Williams who was also illegally removed from the GA. Thanks in advance joe baptista On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Dearest Avri, > > Your wisdom is given away by your words. A mix in my head of Bruni, > Theresa, Sophia, and Golda. You are as quick witted as ever Shakespeare > could have been and piercing of the heart as Cleopatra must have been. You > are a person of great insight blended with passion and compassion. > > Why then, when it comes to your actions in ICANN do you shrink like a waif > not yet convicted of the worth of your hearfelt knowledge? Your stated > disdain for the elites, by way of power, prestige and money do not jive with > your lapdog approach to the GNSO. I swear sometimes you act as one trying to > atone for guilt at not being worthy of your own opines. > > Reinstate Joe and Jeff to the GA. Make statements through actions of > inclusion of the unwashed. Do not be satisfied in knowing your own heart but > follow it in deed. > > I am not ashamed of my affection for your brilliance and so any post to you > in private may be made public, it is out of respect I do not shout from > rooftops. From our first exchanges some years ago, I recognized and > respected your gifts, I wish only for you to capitalize on them. Clearly I > am a highwayman and rogue and not suited for association with one of your > position. > > Eric > > --- On *Sat, 8/1/09, Avri Doria * wrote: > > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 8:29 PM > > > On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know > the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such > thing) > > > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and . > Making disgustingly disparaging remarks > ... > > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. > > 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice > Potter Stewart (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) > > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I > understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] > > and some other definitions from: > http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html > > Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant > magistrate. > Bertrand Russell > > Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the > murk. > Henry Miller > > Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a > monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, > which it devours in secret. > Percy Bysshe Shelley > > Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of > art - or almost the only stuff. > David Herbert Lawrence > > The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth > over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. > Phyllis Schlafly > > You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it > realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, > then that's obscenity. > Roman Polanski > > Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, > which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality > but to those of another. > Herbert Marcuse > > Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we > know it when we see it. > Jef I. Richards > > Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which > deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. > William J. Brennan, Jr. > > > at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always > been partial to Marcuse. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 1 22:22:21 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:22:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: GA list, Joe Baptista & Jeff Williams Message-ID: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> For the record - here is what I got from Avri. This is the nonsense I was referring to.in my email to Eric. I will respond to this at a later time. Right now Avri still has one more injustice to right. The reinstatement of Jeff Williams. cheers joe baptista ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM Subject: GA list To: Joe Baptista Cc: Glen de Saint Gery Dear Mr. Baptista, As I am sure you know, as you were one of the list monitors, the GA list asked to self-regulate and GNSO Council decided in 2007 (resolution 20070906-2) to let it do so. But as you say, the council is ultimately responsible for the mailing list, and as the current council chair I am the address for an appeal. In this case, though I hate to act under threat as that leads people to believe that threats are the proper way to behave, I took your threat and treated it as if it had been a actual appeal. After investigating the details, it does seem that the time of your suspension had ended and that you should have been reinstated. I do not know if the list monitor is responsible for taking action to restore a suspended list member or if the suspended member is expected to request reinstatement, but I believe that a request on your part would have most likely been sufficient. While it might have been possible for me, according to the rules adopted by the GA list, to request an extra period of suspension due to your public threats against me, I have decided not to do so and have requested that you be reinstated at this time. Avri Doria Chair GNSO Council -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Sun Aug 2 00:24:10 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 06:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: GA list, etc. In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7514EA.7080604@skynet.be> Good morning: I have removed from this list until further notice. I may revisit the list in two weeks time ... CW ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 2 01:07:36 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <150105.64732.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This mail has been getting me to wonder; "what does Jeanette Hofmann do regarding IG that is more relevant than a General Assembly attached to Generic Names as part of the closest thing we have to IG??"      I suppose her objection to discussing GA here has something more deep, closer to a prohibition on cross posting.  Something about dividing and conquering.  Something about not letting the unruly masses know what is going on across the board.  But perhaps there is something that most of us are not aware of that Ms. Hoffmann and Lucy Lynch are involved in.  If that is the case I would sure appreciate being updated.   --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Lucy Lynch" Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 5:48 AM Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list elsewhere and also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? Thank you. Jeanette Eric Dierker wrote: > Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my bad. >  Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good period of time.  They are not nonsense.  In a very real respect/aspect they are as important as our Net Gov. of Protocals and Addressing.  While sometimes passion and conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a mutual respect by abiding by civil society decency in communication. >  A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my neighbor could to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest and courteous, I scarcely say there would be little need for government or laws"  (ed - to a Jury, in a murder trial 1986) >  A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the world is a better place for your efforts. >  Eric > > --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch //* wrote: > > >     From: Lucy Lynch >     Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" >      >     Cc: "Avri Doria" >     Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM > >     On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > >      > Well that is very nice Avri.  And I agree with much of what you >     say.  However their are two people who were regular contributors >     suspended/censored from the list.  There are no recognized monitors >     and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. >     but with nothing open and transparent.  So your talk is not >     consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. >     Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat.   So you really >     do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say >     opposite things. > >     Using full headers reveals: > >     List-Id: >     List-Archive: >     List-Help:      ?subject=help> >     List-Owner:      > >     List-Post:      > >     List-Subscribe:      ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >     List-Unsubscribe: >          ?subject=unsubscribe%20governance> > >     so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed > >     sorry for interrupting with technical info... > >      > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria      > wrote: >      > >      > >      > From: Avri Doria      > >      > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >      > To: "Governance List"      > >      > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >      > >      > >      > >      > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net >      >     wrote: >      > >      >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it >     is up to you. >      > >      > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up >     and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >      > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on >     a regular basis. >      > >      > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read >     it regularly. >      > >      > >      > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that >     list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish >     to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, >     without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, >     I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me.  That >     is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make >     the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant >     to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO >     without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already >     usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >     about to become one of them  If the list wants to be more then a >     list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the >     responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not >     hinder that effort. >      > >      > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council >     (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!).  At >     that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, >     if I want that list to be something more then a basket for >     complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of >     the list to try and do something.  Until then, I am just one of the >     caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. >      > >      > a. >      > >      > >      > ____________________________________________________________ >      > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >      > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >      >      > >      > For all list information and functions, see: >      >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >      > ____________________________________________________________ >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >         governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >     To be removed from the list, send any message to: >         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >      > >     For all list information and functions, see: >         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >     -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > >     ____________________________________________________________ >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >          governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >     To be removed from the list, send any message to: >          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >      > >     For all list information and functions, see: >          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >      > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Aug 2 10:37:35 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:37:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A75A4AF.7040407@rits.org.br> Yes, I strongly agree. --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a >> service to be left to the market... > > > Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; > "stick to open standards". This is why I have always preferred to use > SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor > can lock up. If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to > encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Aug 2 10:45:05 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:45:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> Well, big telcos or e-Bay, not much difference... but many voIP nets (both for-profit and non-profit) are built on SIP and using the open Asterisk system, and I think if this failure happens the open voIP alternative will receive a big boost. In this case, unfortunately there remains the problem of the best codecs still being proprietary, but this is not precluding Asterisk-based nets from spreading to the point that voIP hardware makers are building their devices Asterisk-ready. One (temporary?) advantage of the Skype net is that they manage to charge less than local commercial voIP services in several countries even for local calls -- due I guess to massive bulk contracts with data networks (the advantage of having that $$$ scale...). frt rgds --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... > > > my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it > fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some > pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. > > one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core > piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient > compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering > themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? > > what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work > with VoIP. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 2 11:06:12 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:06:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: In message <4A75A671.6090603 at rits.org.br>, at 11:45:05 on Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Carlos Afonso writes >One (temporary?) advantage of the Skype net is that they manage to >charge less than local commercial voIP services in several countries >even for local calls And their "supernode" system which apparently sometimes succeeds in making contact even if the end points cannot make direct contact. -- 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 baptista at publicroot.org Sun Aug 2 11:13:47 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:13:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Open Ltr. to Babtista (obscenity) In-Reply-To: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908020813x299787dejd4a3e86b9052e3c5@mail.gmail.com> Eric - forgive me but am not sure to what your apologizing about. I may have missed that message. Been very busy of late. Eric you have my thanks. You have been persistent in addressing the illegal censorship of myself and Jeff Williams from the GA by ICANN the U.S. government contractor all in the hope of covering up a frivolous and vexatious complaint that one of their employees used to work for a Nazi. My only concern right now is that Avri get Jeff Williams reinstated and right the wrongs she participated in. In any case I was interested in your commentaries on excrement below. Excrement is something I can speak to and a topic that should be of significance to the IP and governance communities. Throughout the course of human history excrement has been used by homoerectusas a means of making a political statement. The throwing of excrement, preferably ones own, at an enemy is a time honored tradition in various political protests through the ages. Excrement even defines territory. There are many species of wild animals who use excrement to make their territories. Fellow animals respect the demarcation points. Some beasts of prey mark their victims with excrement to prevent others from eating the remains. Much like the GNSO and ICANN. Anyway thats my two cents on the concept of shit. I'll have more political excrement later when I respond to Avri email on the GA. Right now I'm waiting for Jeff Williams to be reinstated. regards joe baptista On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I write in apology. I suffered ill intentions toward your comments earlier > this week. Without cause. In defense I read your posts in much hurry without > reflection or empathy. I considered them ill mannered and in bad taste. I > was wrong. > It is the subjects and actions you criticize that are disgusting and ill > mannered. Your proclamation of that is honorable. > (if we use euphemism - saying Homo Erectus excrement, the unwise may not > be warned against it -- if we label it *SHIT* -- we may spare them from > disastrous disease) Cute, coy well mannered talk often masks real and > present dangers, leading to suffering of our brothers. > > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the > definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing) > > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and . > Making disgustingly disparaging remarks against those who carry on the > entrepreneurial spirit and succeed. Their unabashed hatred and contempt for > those who have the accident of being wealthy would make Marx - industrial > proletariat revolution and Ho Chi Minh - agrarian proletariat revolution, > blush, and it creates tyrants like Lenin and Pol Pot. The absolute ignorance > of and disdain for free enterprise and freedom to fail and choice is truly > abhorrent and obscene. Their scary thinly veiled stated belief that we > should turn the reins of technological development and user choice over to > their kind of Crats is truly dangerous to society. That kind of hate speech > should be censored here. > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 kboakye at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 12:33:12 2009 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:33:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: 'Fake UK sites' trick consumers Message-ID: <20090803_163313_059705.kboakye@gmail.com> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** 'Fake UK sites' trick consumers ** Trading standards officers say consumers are being tricked into buying fake goods by companies pretending to be based in the UK. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/business/8178959.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From llynch at civil-tongue.net Mon Aug 3 14:35:06 2009 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <4A762C11.9AB6FB8F@ix.netcom.com> References: <150105.64732.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4A762C11.9AB6FB8F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: not sure how I'm included in this discussion as all I did was send a note about hoe technolgy worked - meant to be helpful. - Lucy On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Eric and all, > > Ditto! I am always more than willing to read/listen to whatever > Jeanette or Lucy have to say as much as anyone else. I would hope > that everyone would be thinking likewise... Cross posting is a > contrivance that is counter inclusive and therefore often a evil that > should be rejected, IMO... However be advised, I am not willing > to give Jeanette or Lucy more consideration than anyone else... > > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >> This mail has been getting me to wonder; "what does Jeanette Hofmann > do regarding IG that is more relevant than a General Assembly attached > to Generic Names as part of the closest thing we have to IG??" I > suppose her objection to discussing GA here has something more deep, > closer to a prohibition on cross posting. Something about dividing > and conquering. Something about not letting the unruly masses know > what is going on across the board. But perhaps there is something > that most of us are not aware of that Ms. Hoffmann and Lucy Lynch are > involved in. If that is the case I would sure appreciate being > updated. > > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > Cc: "Lucy Lynch" > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 5:48 AM > > Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list > elsewhere and also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? > Thank you. Jeanette > > Eric Dierker wrote: > > Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my > bad. > > Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good > period of time. They are not nonsense. In a very real > respect/aspect they are as important as our Net Gov. of > Protocals and Addressing. While sometimes passion and > conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it > should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a > mutual respect by abiding by civil society decency in > communication. > > A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my > neighbor could to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest > and courteous, I scarcely say there would be little need for > government or laws" (ed - to a Jury, in a murder trial > 1986) > > A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the > world is a better place for your efforts. > > Eric > > > > --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch > //* wrote: > > > > > > From: Lucy Lynch > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > > > Cc: "Avri Doria" > > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM > > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > > > Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much > of what you > > say. However their are two people who were regular > contributors > > suspended/censored from the list. There are no > recognized monitors > > and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU > censored them. > > but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk > is not > > consistent with your actions as is the case generally > with the GNSO. > > Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. > So you really > > do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability > to do and say > > opposite things. > > > > Using full headers reveals: > > > > List-Id: > > List-Archive: > > > List-Help: > > ?subject=help> > > > List-Owner: > > > > > > List-Post: > > > > > > List-Subscribe: > > ?subject=subscribe%20governance> > > > List-Unsubscribe: > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe%20governance> > > > > > so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be > needed > > > > sorry for interrupting with technical info... > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Avri Doria > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > > To: "Governance List" > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep > it running it > > is up to you. > > > > > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the > list stays up > > and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > > > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read > that list on > > a regular basis. > > > > > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately > orderly and I read > > it regularly. > > > > > > > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to > trying to make that > > list anything more then a list where people who > subscribe and wish > > to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. > In fact, > > without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the > ICANN Board, > > I would see trying to change the list as out of scope > for me. That > > is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of > trying to make > > the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what > the GA was meant > > to be before it was decimated in the transition from > DNSO to GNSO > > without a proper policy process - too many people in > ICANN already > > usurp the right to make policy without proper process, > and I am not > > about to become one of them If the list wants to be > more then a > > list or wants to spin off real organizations then it > is the > > responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I > would not > > hinder that effort. > > > > > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the > GNSO Council > > (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the > background!). At > > that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and > at that point, > > if I want that list to be something more then a basket > for > > complaints then it will be become my responsibility as > a member of > > the list to try and do something. Until then, I am > just one of the > > caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and > nothing more. > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 5 13:28:31 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:28:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DOC044.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 180129 bytes Desc: DOC044.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT74839.txt URL: From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Aug 5 19:17:24 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:17:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM To: igf_members at intgovforum.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA FYI wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Wed Aug 5 22:39:33 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:39:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the internet, too. The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better off with your own. -Karl E. Peters Quoting Vanda Scartezini : > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > 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 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM > To: igf_members at intgovforum.org > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > FYI > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 5 23:22:37 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:22:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:28, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > wolfgang > > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. and of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO) don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Aug 6 02:34:20 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:34:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. This is a *very* complicated issue. First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better places. What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are done. I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 03:03:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:03:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, we are not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what internet governance might mean. When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember coming up with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially disinterested in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me otherwise. To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather than a battle over an organisation that is doing something else. On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 6 03:32:46 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:32:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193D0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/technology/090801/icann-domain-names-internet ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 07:08:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I like this Karl.  I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black and white.  They are not.  The variations on how packets are not lost, how TCPs are conducted and namespaces resolve are quite clearly variations that benefit some and do not benefit others.  Which tools we use and who we contract with to provide them are not clerical issues.   The Legal Jurisdictional suite which houses ICANN is immensely important on issues of free speech and stability of the host.  Even your lawsuit shows that any less of a compassionate legal system would have had you on your ear long before any progress was made. Perhaps you have not wrangled legally inside a truly communistic country, or been jailed for supporting bloggers. This is the only explanation for your cavalier approach to where operations are housed. Also you fail to make out the importance of that California/US tax structure that would be turned inside out in a jurisdictional with no 501(c) 3 type exemptions and a 50% tax base with 100% uptakes on luxuries like the internet.   Karl your utopia must wait for a real place. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 6:34 AM On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >   I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. This is a *very* complicated issue. First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move.  Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while back I saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs.  It would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I tend to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if we search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better places. What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are done. I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have performed before we undertake to move ICANN.         --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 07:24:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <608888.19474.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ian please enlighten me on this subject of asking the right questions.  Where some silly folks gave me my degrees  the Only Question was to "Always Question Authority".   The biggest problem around Internet Governance is that all the Questioneers seem to be claiming Authority.   As to your "huge dilema" about asking the simple question "what we need for internet governance".  I will give you a secret:  Simply get up every morning and quite simply ask it. How loud is your choice. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl Auerbach" Cc: igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:03 AM I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, we are not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what internet governance might mean. When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember coming up with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially disinterested in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me otherwise. To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather than a battle over an organisation that is doing something else. On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>   I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. >   Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs.  It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 07:37:45 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:37:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> You are right Karl - what is important is to prevent collisions. That was at one time to be the job of the TLDA - the organization who's email address your using. Unfortunately the TLDA has ended up being a joke and a significant failure in the eyes of it's own membership. When I bootstrapped the TLDA two years ago with you we had over 30 members. Today you have five left. I point these difficult facts out to you in case anyone mistakes your comments for informed commentary. It is difficult to be considered informed when the organization one represent is a failure. cheers joe baptista On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, wrote: > I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash > internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be > international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can > well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but > this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. > Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS > including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN > except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the > internet, too. > The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. > Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will > always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better > off with your own. > -Karl E. Peters > > > > Quoting Vanda Scartezini : > > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> >> 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 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM >> To: igf_members at intgovforum.org >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >> >> >> FYI >> >> wolfgang >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 07:40:35 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:40:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is > theirs, all theirs? > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Aug 6 08:22:31 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:22:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and > yes, we are > not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what > internet > governance might mean. This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in his helpful post? Just wondering, Bill > > When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember > coming up > with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and > incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially > disinterested > in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me > otherwise. > > To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an > examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather > than a > battle over an organisation that is doing something else. > > > > > On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > >> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>> the >>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>> Congress in the >>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> >> This is a *very* complicated issue. >> >> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >> politician >> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >> labeled >> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >> >> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >> (and >> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >> TLDs >> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >> be >> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >> things. >> >> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >> move. >> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >> questions >> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >> Jones >> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >> matters.) >> >> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >> contracts >> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >> the >> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >> arcane >> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >> would >> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >> interpreted >> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >> contract >> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >> registrants >> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >> It >> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >> >> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >> nothing >> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >> combination in >> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >> entity >> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >> doing >> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >> nature? >> >> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >> tend >> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >> is not >> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >> of >> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >> >> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >> minded >> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >> that >> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >> as >> good as most of the better places. >> >> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >> the >> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >> >> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >> vanish >> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >> >> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >> supposed >> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >> particular >> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >> any >> query source or query subject. >> >> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >> important >> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >> >> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >> done >> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >> are done. >> >> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >> succeed >> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >> >> --karl-- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Aug 6 08:31:25 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:31:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why until today Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony network... or the Scottish control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) --c.a. Joe Baptista wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is >> theirs, all theirs? >> > > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to > DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the > DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > > cheers > joe baptista > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 08:55:59 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:55:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why until today > Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony network... or the Scottish > control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) That is not what I said. Clearly the DNS and the Internet for that matter is a U.S. invention. However the subject of control is an architectural issue. In telecommunication control is a centralized affair. On the Internet control is in the hands of the end users. However the lack control does not change the fact the U.S. through ARPA and later DARPA build the Internet we have and use today. cheers joe baptista > > > --c.a. > > Joe Baptista wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS >>> is >>> theirs, all theirs? >>> >>> >> Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to >> DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that >> the >> DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. >> >> cheers >> joe baptista >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 Thu Aug 6 09:37:40 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:37:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Request to join your IGF Workshop on the Development Agenda for Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0C26C50E-281C-4550-93A9-87C08A8FD09E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <701af9f70908050920j3e882aa3h6555a6c4c8a45055@mail.gmail.com> <0C26C50E-281C-4550-93A9-87C08A8FD09E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70908060637o34564f71u1c21578e23e1e095@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bill, Let's start with this video interview from the OECD Ministerial in Seoul last year on the Future of the Internet Economy after my presentation: http://stream.elon.edu/stream/predictions/oecd_2008/Fouad_Riaz_Bajwa.mov and after watching it read on: Internet Governance should be primarily oriented to realising the information society opportunity for moving towards achieving the ideals and goals of social and human development and I was nominated by the IGC and elected to the MAG, why, to join, support and strengthen the Civil Society and voice the development aspects in the Internet Governance process with regards to linking IG with Human Rights, counter the monopolistic Financial Modalities and underplay with the developing world by the Private Sector, encourage Corporate Social Responsibilities with regards to the Internet, adequate and appropriate transfer of technology, voting for pro-development national ICT policies and to help develop the vision of the process towards an open, inclusive and mutual consensus for an Internet Governance Development Agenda. From Markus to all members of the MAG, my interventions have been evident though these are at a very basic level but I have stepped on the stone to contribute to the process. As discussed with the MAG generically, we are hopefully looking forward to the IGF secretariat allowing the workshop to span into a three hour session and feed into the main sessions, though this is a proposal at this stage. This would create the stage for improving the future interventions on such a workshop. As this is an open space and is not restricted by one and anyone should be able to join in at any stage despite the fact that it has been conducted for a number of years now, I believe in new stimulation and people that can play a definitive role in furthering a certain aspect. I come from the developing world, that is my first understanding to feed into Internet Governance. We face real issues of how the Internet affects us politically, socially and economically. We too are stranded by the control and influence of the business world and the governments bending towards commercial interests due to FDI and ODI but at the same time, we are becoming more and more aware of the social potential of the Internet and the vastness this area offers for development concerns. Though I don't want us to act as the guinea pigs for testing, instead, I believe that we should be aware of all the development issues that influences the governance of our part of the Internet. I am sure that I had clearly conveyed to you during the brief meetings we had in Geneva that I 100% pro-development agenda of the IGF and have the motive to carry out every effort that can stimulate the IGF process to adopt the Internet Governance for Development Agenda. Your workshop could be that first step and that is my initial internet. Secondly, if this workshop has shared something meaningful for the past two years and it hasn't been conveyed meaningfully into the IGF process and has not received the recognition and adoption to lead towards the formulation of that agenda, we have to both stimulate it to be recognized and include more people as the development agenda is the people's agenda and there is no limit to the amount of people that can be part of this agenda. My ideas about a development agenda is very clear, that agenda that affects my country and all the developing countries of the world. We have a need, we have a voice and we have a focus that the IGF one day shall carry the development agenda and come up as a meaningful process to facilitate the development process of its member countries. The Internet will always continue to be evolving and we will always continue to face and counter the issues that arise and that demote our right to development utilizing the Internet. The political economy of the Internet is as equal to the developed as to the developing. Our voice, our needs and our future with regards to the governance of the Internet and how it will affect our governments, businesses and civil society at large will be an issue to continue to intervene on. An open, inclusive and collaborative space is that one which lets new faces and new voices be heard. My country's problems are not necessarily the same as those of Brazil and my region of South Asia's problems are not similar to those of the region of Europe. My country is not a member of the OECD and the OECD policies are that the developed world abides by and influences development policies of the World Bank and IMF towards our regions and countries. Bill, the WSIS called for the Internet to be be politically driven to shape the people centred and development oriented Information Society.It is crucial for us members of the Civil Society to pursue dialogue, capacity building of stakeholders, policy interventions and supporting research and advocacy campaigns aimed at demanding the establishment of a real development agenda in the area of ICTs with respect to IG. We have to make the WSIS development outcome and impact. We have to bring in more CS members to equal the membership of MAG in comparison with Governments and Private Sector. We have to take every possible initiative together that encourages the identification and realization of the development agenda. Five people alone will not be the only simulators, there will be many of us and I want to join the discussions meaningfully from South Asia, from Pakistan, from Civil Society unless this is the usual academic and research activity. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Fouad, > Hope this message finds you well... > Thanks for your interest in my workshop proposal.  As you can see, at > present I have five speakers lined up already, plus myself of course as the > moderator.  I am also waiting to hear on another invitation that would bring > us to six speakers plus moderator.  My experience with the first two > workshops I organized on this topic clearly indicates that in either > configuration we already have too many speakers with two little time > available to each, especially when I add in the back and forth dialogue > between speakers after their presentations and then the Q&A.  As such, I > cannot squeeze in another without seriously cutting into the time of each, > which is not the way to treat senior policy makers etc. > However, I understand that there is some discussion of an option I mentioned > in the proposal to expand the workshop to a three hour slot.  Were that to > occur, this would allow me to add more speakers.  I gather that there are > some stakeholder groups that would expect to be included in an expanded > event, which could result in some new crowding and difficulties in managing > the balance.  But in principle and a priori, it may indeed become possible > in this case to include your ideas in the mix.  So let's see what is decided > by people in a position to decide things and then go from there. > In the meanwhile, perhaps you could help me get my head around the expanded > scenario by sharing just what your ideas on the development agenda proposal > are?  Bear in mind, this is not a workshop on "development is good" > generically, but rather on a particular set of institutional architectural > options for moving forward.  I'm not familiar with your thinking on the > ideas we've been discussing over the past few years, so it would help me a > lot to know. > Thanks again, > Bill > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote: > > Dear Fouad, > thanks for the email. > William Drake had this innitative that I am happy to contribute to, so he is > the right person to answer your request. > Best regards > Olga Cavalli > > 2009/8/5 Fouad Bajwa >> >> Dear William and Olga, >> >> I wanted to extend my participation in the workshop organized by >> yourselves titled "316. Implementing the WSIS Principles: A >> Development Agenda for Internet Governance" as either a speaker and/or >> moderator. >> >> As William knows about my interest and interventions at the open >> consultations on the subject in May 2009, and, furthering the Internet >> Governance for Development within the IGF process, I would like to >> equally participate and provide considerable input valuable to the >> event. >> >> I look forward to your comments. >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > -- > Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. > www.south-ssig.com.ar > > *********************************************************** > 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 pimienta at funredes.org Thu Aug 6 09:56:51 2009 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:56:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <200908061357.n76DvHsf007291@funredes.org> >But I don't see a reason to not continue to state the need to ICANN >to become really international. Was not the creation of IGF during the WSIS process a final (and difficult) decision reached to find a compromise on the pressure on the US from the rest of the world to release grasp on ICANN, on one side, and the reluctance from the US to accept changes, on the other one? Was not IGF supposed to eventually help a decision on that very subject? I also remember that many thought that this "solution" was just a manner to earn time by making people discuss ... and take no decision. IGF may have evolve das a structure beyond this initial background but, if my memory is correct, I wonder if IGF should not this time go beyong discussion and try to reach a consensus for a formal and public statement in favor of the internationalization of ICANN. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Aug 6 10:30:26 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:30:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA (r.e. the TLDA) In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090806093026.zwpfd0q4ys84084w@www.tldainc.org> I made no comment on behalf of the TLDA in my original post, READ it! I will say, though, that there were no members then, except that we included all those who had been involved years ago when it died for lack of enthusiasm upon the theft of a successful .BIZ from Leah Gallegos and the denial of .WEB to Chris Ambler. Many of those initial members had gotten out of the business altogether in that time. Some of those have dropped off but others have joined and with a new interactive website, including its own secure voting mechanism, we are no longer susceptible to fraud, as we once were. In your own way, you helped to inspire that move. We now have only 20 people managing their own TLDs in our group but there is much more participation from the few than we ever had before. Policies are being drafted and preparations are being made to stand up and offer our expected services. We are not there now, but ICANN has not been doing what it was designed for either, and they have a captive audience that pays them money to stay in the game. I would much rather defend TLDA (TLDAINC.ORG) than ICANN! -Karl E. Peters Quoting Joe Baptista : > You are right Karl - what is important is to prevent collisions. That was at > one time to be the job of the TLDA - the organization who's email address > your using. > > Unfortunately the TLDA has ended up being a joke and a significant failure > in the eyes of it's own membership. When I bootstrapped the TLDA two years > ago with you we had over 30 members. Today you have five left. > > I point these difficult facts out to you in case anyone mistakes your > comments for informed commentary. It is difficult to be considered informed > when the organization one represent is a failure. > > cheers > joe baptista > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, wrote: > >> I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash >> internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be >> international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can >> well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but >> this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. >> Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS >> including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN >> except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the >> internet, too. >> The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. >> Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will >> always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better >> off with your own. >> -Karl E. Peters >> >> >> >> Quoting Vanda Scartezini : >> >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM >>> To: igf_members at intgovforum.org >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >>> >>> >>> FYI >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & > Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 11:51:04 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:51:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society Message-ID: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Friends, As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from the developed world perspective. I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the grass roots and members of the IGC. I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 13:43:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective on the net.   The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM Dear Friends, As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from the developed world perspective. I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the grass roots and members of the IGC. I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 nhklein at gmx.net Thu Aug 6 14:22:52 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:22:52 +0700 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society In-Reply-To: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908070122.53118.nhklein@gmx.net> On Friday, 7 August 2009 00:43:07 Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  > What makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective on the net. Of course it does. > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. I do not know where you live and work to speak about the lower Mekong or Puebla. And it is also not just that the Northeasten Arizona is different from most other places in the USA - where more policy power resides. I am much in agreement with Fouad. Greetings from the lower Mekong, Norbert Klein Phnom Penh > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial: Different Bits of Information – Questions for All to Consider – Sunday, 1.8.2009 http://tinyurl.com/mlo4dp (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 15:34:09 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:34:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Bill, Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except that in suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be suggesting that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and useful Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is a good step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular incomplete and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be some sort of useful building block in future internet governance, that would be a good start IMHO. I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps suggest to me where you think this is so. Ian On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >> yes, we are >> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >> internet >> governance might mean. > > This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the > JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's > linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should > exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to > continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in > his helpful post? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > >> >> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >> coming up >> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >> disinterested >> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >> otherwise. >> >> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >> than a >> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >> >>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>> the >>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>> Congress in the >>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>> >>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>> politician >>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>> labeled >>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>> >>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>> (and >>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>> TLDs >>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>> be >>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>> things. >>> >>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>> move. >>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>> questions >>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>> Jones >>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>> matters.) >>> >>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>> contracts >>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>> the >>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>> arcane >>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>> would >>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>> interpreted >>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>> contract >>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>> registrants >>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>> It >>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>> >>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>> nothing >>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>> combination in >>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>> entity >>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>> doing >>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>> nature? >>> >>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>> tend >>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>> is not >>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>> of >>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>> >>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>> minded >>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>> that >>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>> as >>> good as most of the better places. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>> the >>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>> >>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>> vanish >>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>> >>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>> supposed >>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>> particular >>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>> any >>> query source or query subject. >>> >>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>> important >>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>> >>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>> done >>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>> are done. >>> >>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>> succeed >>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>> >>> --karl-- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:54:29 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality on the iPhone Message-ID: <4A7B34F5.5000400@gmail.com> http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/fcc-probes-apples-rejection-google-voice-iphone-039 "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [USA] late Friday launched an investigation into Apple's rejection of Google Voice for the iPhone, and the removal of similar software from the App Store." "In a letter sent to Apple, the FCC asked the company why it turned down Google Voice for the iPhone and pulled several other Google Voice-related programs from the iPhone's only sanctioned online mart. The FCC also sent similar letters to both AT&T -- Apple's exclusive carrier partner in the U.S. -- and Google, asking both firms to provide more information on the issue." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:59:03 2009 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:59:03 -0600 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/6, Ian Peter : > Hi Bill, > > Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except that in > suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be suggesting > that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and useful > Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is a good > step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular incomplete > and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be some sort > of useful building block in future internet governance, that would be a good > start IMHO. > > I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps suggest > to me where you think this is so. > > Ian > > > On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>> yes, we are >>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>> internet >>> governance might mean. >> >> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should >> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >> his helpful post? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>> coming up >>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>> disinterested >>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >>> otherwise. >>> >>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>> than a >>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>> the >>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>> Congress in the >>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>>> >>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>> >>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>> politician >>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>> labeled >>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>> >>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>> (and >>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>> TLDs >>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>> be >>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>> things. >>>> >>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>> move. >>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>> questions >>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>> Jones >>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>>> matters.) >>>> >>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>> contracts >>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>> the >>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>> arcane >>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>> would >>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>> interpreted >>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>> contract >>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>> registrants >>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>> It >>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>> >>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>> nothing >>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>> combination in >>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>> entity >>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>> doing >>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>> nature? >>>> >>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>> tend >>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>> is not >>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>> of >>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>> >>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>> minded >>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>> that >>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>> as >>>> good as most of the better places. >>>> >>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>> the >>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>>> >>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>> vanish >>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>> >>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>> supposed >>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>> particular >>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>> any >>>> query source or query subject. >>>> >>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>> important >>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>> >>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>> done >>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>>> are done. >>>> >>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>> succeed >>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>> >>>> --karl-- >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil Jaco Aizenman L. Presidente Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF ------------------------ My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Aug 6 17:41:33 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:41:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908061441r445d6663qfeca5d4d70751304@mail.gmail.com> I find most of Karl's assessment agreeable. I have always predicated my thinking on the ICANN ecosystem on three pillars 1) ICANN is an American corporation organized under the laws of California and, thusly, subscribes to a certain cultural sensitivity; Karl's reference to a "combination in restraint of trade" is an apt descriptor for the overiding interest 2) The USG has declared a "national security interest" of the Internet which gives political cover for any and all efforts in the Congress of the United States to keep ICANN tethered 3) ICANN's standing in the world is based on some contracts with the USG - the "pyramid of contracts" term used by Karl is definitive - and will remain only to the extent those contracts remain in force. I participate thru the At-large community in ICANN affairs where my goal has always been to give a voice where it might not have otherwise been heard and to moderate impacts of certain decisions on some groups. I have always felt that ICANN - the corporation - needs the At-Large more than it lets on precisely because of the difficulties it finds presenting itself to the world as a global public good. The Europeans are troubled that the US has pride of place in ICANN and they are left out of the decision-making. They are now insistently demanding a place at the table. Their sleight of hand here is that they are dressing up the proposal by seeking to draft significant others - read those to be Brazil, China plus plus - to their cause via their I-20 coalition proposal. So while I agree with Karl that the real issue ought to be about the jobs that must be done, realpolitik says it does matter where the job is done and who's responsible for doing that job. It matters because of what Faoud terms the "development agenda" that "Third World countries" would wish to promote. Those of us who struggle on the periphery and see the possibilities of the Internet for our own national economic and social developemnt also think we ought to have a voice in matters that would affect us even more acutely than formerly. I understand and share his contextual sensibilities. It matters because the EC has recognized the critical importance of the Internet to social and economic well-being of its citizens and is impatient to act to protect what it perceives as their rights. It especially matters because not only does the American cognoscenti shares the views of the EU but a significant segment of these have added a slight twist. They acknowledge the Internet is now integral to the operations of the war-making and waging apparatus of the state, no question. But they have also declared that continued economic vitality and viability and the social ascendancy of the United States are national security interests second to none. My American experience says that invoking the national security interest in any public policy issue makes that issue a "third rail" in American polity. Which speaks to Karl's "man/woman who lost the Internet" sensitivity of the politicians. History repeats itself. Bone up on what transpired re the Treaty of Tordesillas - a Papal Bull - of 1494. And take note of the French King's - Francis I - alleged grouse; "Am I not a Christian and Prince?". Carlton Samuels On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in > the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an > opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I > am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and > address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN > without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive > that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the > rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law > firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find > itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I saw a > draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in > multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws. > That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract > with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of > country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in > country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B. That would > mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum > shopping for those who want TLDs. It would be a legal Gordian knot without > a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to > do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb > that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and > trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of > trade." The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast > effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular > job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and > which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and > open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather > oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN merely > has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend to look on > the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad. > I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an > instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws > about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I > had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly > articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we search the world for > good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, > except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better > places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US > it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet > or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a > poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very pliant tool for > trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to > have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution > system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name > query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS > name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query > subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several > bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the > question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we > will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are > done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if > we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have > performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Aug 6 17:44:29 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:44:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A7B4EBD.3020407@cavebear.com> On 08/06/2009 04:08 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I like this Karl. I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black > and white. They are not. I disagree. Years ago I started to enumerate the jobs that we need to have performed. Take a look at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm There is another formulation at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/public/ntia-july-7-2006-statement.html (Scan down for "Answering the Specific Questions" and then either search (or better yet, read) your way down to "Form follows function" As I see it there are many jobs (e.g. protocol parameter assignment, TLD record updates, root zone file preparation and dissemination, etc) that could be handed over to several clerical bodies. Then there are some policy jobs (that are might be addressed by the kind of notice-and-comment process used by many administrative bodies when the make rules. Then there are the very highly policy loaded jobs - such as IP address allocation policy, whois, and TLD policy - that might be worth more elaborate structure - with one entity for each problem (*not* one entity that handles multiple problems.) By-the-way, there is a subtle point about my metric i.e. that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. That subtle point is this: That I don't think we ought to care very much about the performance and quality of the system through which registrars and registries do their front office business of selling names - there are customers enough, and money enough behind those customers, to drive good standards of performance. But from the perspective of internet governance that reflects the concerns of internet users the quality of the process of resolving names, i.e. the back-office operations of registries, is what is critical. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Aug 6 17:52:09 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:52:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ian, Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that California law is pretty good, etc. And you were equating the USG link with colonial domination to be resisted. These seem to me to be two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace both. Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself would be an utter disaster for civil society. When it's posted, have a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy the conditions enumerated in the JPA." Best, Bill On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except > that in > suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be > suggesting > that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and > useful > Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is > a good > step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular > incomplete > and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be > some sort > of useful building block in future internet governance, that would > be a good > start IMHO. > > I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps > suggest > to me where you think this is so. > > Ian > > > On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" > > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>> yes, we are >>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>> internet >>> governance might mean. >> >> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >> should >> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >> his helpful post? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>> coming up >>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>> disinterested >>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>> convince me >>> otherwise. >>> >>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>> than a >>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>> the >>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>> Congress in the >>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>> not >>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>> international. >>>> >>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>> >>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>> politician >>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>> labeled >>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>> >>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>> (and >>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>> TLDs >>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>> be >>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>> things. >>>> >>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>> move. >>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>> questions >>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>> Jones >>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>> these >>>> matters.) >>>> >>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>> contracts >>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>> the >>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while >>>> back I >>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>> arcane >>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>> would >>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>> interpreted >>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>> contract >>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>> the >>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>> registrants >>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>> It >>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>> >>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>> nothing >>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>> combination in >>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>> entity >>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>> doing >>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>> nature? >>>> >>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>> tend >>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>> is not >>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>> of >>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>> >>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>> minded >>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>> the >>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if >>>> we >>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>> that >>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>> as >>>> good as most of the better places. >>>> >>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>> the >>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>> must. >>>> >>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>> vanish >>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>> >>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>> supposed >>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>> particular >>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>> accurately >>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>> any >>>> query source or query subject. >>>> >>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>> important >>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>> >>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>> done >>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>> and >>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>> they >>>> are done. >>>> >>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>> succeed >>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>> to >>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>> >>>> --karl-- >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 6 20:04:50 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:04:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090807000456.B17986782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Joe, some more nationalistic bragging. At 14:55 06/08/2009, Joe Baptista wrote: >On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Carlos Afonso ><ca at rits.org.br> wrote: >Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why >until today Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony >network... or the Scottish control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) > >That is not what I said. Clearly the DNS and the Internet for that >matter is a U.S. invention. However the subject of control is an >architectural issue. In telecommunication control is a centralized >affair. On the Internet control is in the hands of the end users. Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) of the Internet are of French origin. However, the rustic additions that do not work so well in them truely are U.S. additions :-) like ICANN. And this is what we try to "take care" of :-) right now with the Interplus architectural analysis and the Internet presentation layer support. >However the lack control does not change the fact the U.S. through >ARPA and later DARPA build the Internet we have and use today. Correct. Except that I would have phrased "the internet we have to use today". :-) Cheers ! jfc >Joe Baptista wrote: >On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria ><avri at psg.com> wrote: > >and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is >theirs, all theirs? > > >Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to >DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the >DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > >cheers >joe baptista > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >Joe Baptista > >www.publicroot.org >PublicRoot Consortium >---------------------------------------------------------------- >The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, >Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > >Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 20:27:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7B4EBD.3020407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well said Karl,   I was too absolute in stating that nothing was black and white.  Clearly there are degrees here.  I think that you eventually get to that point. The mechanics do not require the politics (kind of). Certainly we do not need glassy office buildings over looking the Marina in Del Rey. A hobble in Kabul would work.  Well not really, would it?  It would not be stable. It would not be secure. It would not attract investment. It would not attract the best and brightest or the best of breed. It would not endear itself to trust and confidence. And it could have the crap taxed out of it. But your final point about what attracts users is totally off the mark.  I will go out on a limb and say you do not like marketing and you do not watch std commercial TV. That is a bit head in the sand, don't you think.  How could most IGF guys understand what drives a kid to use Itunes to download rap, or a Japanese teeneybopper to bootleg bubble gum Indy.  Can you say you get twitter and face -- not how it technically works by why it is so popular? How many texts can you do in four minutes? Believe me -- 90-95 percent of the internet net could give a rats ---- about your stability and security. But they do want accessability at a cheap price to whatever is Hot! Internet Governance has more to do with the flow of what is currently popular than the flow of electrical current. Or did I miss something and the term governance is now relegated to the speed of mechanisms. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" , wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 9:44 PM On 08/06/2009 04:08 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I like this Karl.  I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black > and white. They are not. I disagree.  Years ago I started to enumerate the jobs that we need to have performed.  Take a look at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm There is another formulation at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/public/ntia-july-7-2006-statement.html (Scan down for "Answering the Specific Questions" and then either search (or better yet, read) your way down to "Form follows function" As I see it there are many jobs (e.g. protocol parameter assignment, TLD record updates, root zone file preparation and dissemination, etc) that could be handed over to several clerical bodies. Then there are some policy jobs (that are might be addressed by the kind of notice-and-comment process used by many administrative bodies when the make rules. Then there are the very highly policy loaded jobs - such as IP address allocation policy, whois, and TLD policy - that might be worth more elaborate structure - with one entity for each problem (*not* one entity that handles multiple problems.) By-the-way, there is a subtle point about my metric i.e. that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. That subtle point is this: That I don't think we ought to care very much about the performance and quality of the system through which registrars and registries do their front office business of selling names - there are customers enough, and money enough behind those customers, to drive good standards of performance. But from the perspective of internet governance that reflects the concerns of internet users the quality of the process of resolving names, i.e. the back-office operations of registries, is what is critical.         --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Thu Aug 6 20:43:20 2009 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:43:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] unsubscribing In-Reply-To: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <279D5B6B-3E42-4239-BE3B-D23E9C6E6B0E@internet.law.pro> If the list ever returns to being the productive place it was a few months ago, please someone contact me directly so I may resubscribe. Life's too short. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 20:46:30 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:46:30 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, There is of course a distinction between operating under Californian law and the JPA. On 7/08/09 7:52 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be > difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that > California law is pretty good, etc. And you were equating the USG > link with colonial domination to be resisted. These seem to me to be > two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace > both. > > Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is > becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself > would be an utter disaster for civil society. When it's posted, have > a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP > believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural > protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy > the conditions enumerated in the JPA." > > Best, > > Bill > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except >> that in >> suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be >> suggesting >> that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and >> useful >> Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is >> a good >> step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular >> incomplete >> and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be >> some sort >> of useful building block in future internet governance, that would >> be a good >> start IMHO. >> >> I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps >> suggest >> to me where you think this is so. >> >> Ian >> >> >> On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" >> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>>> yes, we are >>>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>>> internet >>>> governance might mean. >>> >>> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >>> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >>> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >>> should >>> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >>> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >>> his helpful post? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> >>>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>>> coming up >>>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>>> disinterested >>>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>>> convince me >>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>>> than a >>>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>>> the >>>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>>> not >>>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>>> international. >>>>> >>>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>>> >>>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>>> politician >>>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>>> labeled >>>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>>> >>>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>>> (and >>>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>>> TLDs >>>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>>> be >>>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>>> move. >>>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>>> questions >>>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>>> Jones >>>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>>> these >>>>> matters.) >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>>> contracts >>>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>>> the >>>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while >>>>> back I >>>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>>> arcane >>>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>>> would >>>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>>> interpreted >>>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>>> contract >>>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>>> the >>>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>>> registrants >>>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>>> It >>>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>>> nothing >>>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>>> combination in >>>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>>> entity >>>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>>> doing >>>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>>> nature? >>>>> >>>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>>> tend >>>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>>> is not >>>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>>> of >>>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>>> >>>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>>> minded >>>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>>> the >>>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if >>>>> we >>>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>>> that >>>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>>> as >>>>> good as most of the better places. >>>>> >>>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>>> the >>>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>>> must. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>>> vanish >>>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>>> >>>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>>> supposed >>>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>>> particular >>>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>>> accurately >>>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>>> any >>>>> query source or query subject. >>>>> >>>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>>> important >>>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>>> >>>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>>> done >>>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>>> and >>>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>>> they >>>>> are done. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>>> succeed >>>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>>> to >>>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> --karl-- >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 21:21:53 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:21:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: And also, surely, a distinction between the US Department of Commerce and the US Government? Deirdre 2009/8/6 Ian Peter : > Hi Bill, > > There is of course a distinction between operating under Californian law and > the JPA. > > > > > On 7/08/09 7:52 AM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be >> difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that >> California law is pretty good, etc.  And you were equating the USG >> link with colonial domination to be resisted.  These seem to me to be >> two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace >> both. >> >> Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is >> becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself >> would be an utter disaster for civil society.  When it's posted, have >> a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP >> believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural >> protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy >> the conditions enumerated in the JPA." >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except >>> that in >>> suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be >>> suggesting >>> that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and >>> useful >>> Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is >>> a good >>> step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular >>> incomplete >>> and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be >>> some sort >>> of useful building block in future internet governance, that would >>> be a good >>> start IMHO. >>> >>> I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps >>> suggest >>> to me where you think this is so. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>>>> yes, we are >>>>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>>>> internet >>>>> governance might mean. >>>> >>>> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >>>> JPA statement a couple months ago.  At that time you likened ICANN's >>>> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >>>> should >>>> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >>>> continue the JPA."  How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >>>> his helpful post? >>>> >>>> Just wondering, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>>>> coming up >>>>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>>>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>>>> disinterested >>>>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>>>> convince me >>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>>>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>>>> than a >>>>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>>>> international. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>>>> politician >>>>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>>>> labeled >>>>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>>>> >>>>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>>>> (and >>>>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>>>> TLDs >>>>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>>>> be >>>>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>>>> move. >>>>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>>>> questions >>>>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>>>> Jones >>>>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>>>> these >>>>>> matters.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>>>> contracts >>>>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and >>>>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>>>> the >>>>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while >>>>>> back I >>>>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>>>> arcane >>>>>> national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>>>> would >>>>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>>>> interpreted >>>>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>>>> contract >>>>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>>>> the >>>>>> laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>>>> registrants >>>>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>>>> It >>>>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>>>> nothing >>>>>> to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>>>> combination in >>>>>> restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to >>>>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>>>> entity >>>>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>>>> doing >>>>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>>>> nature? >>>>>> >>>>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, >>>>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN >>>>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I >>>>>> tend >>>>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>>>> is not >>>>>> all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>>>> of >>>>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>>>> minded >>>>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>>>> the >>>>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if >>>>>> we >>>>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>>>> that >>>>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>>>> as >>>>>> good as most of the better places. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>>>> the >>>>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>>>> must. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>>>> vanish >>>>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very >>>>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>>>> supposed >>>>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>>>> particular >>>>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>>>> accurately >>>>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>>>> any >>>>>> query source or query subject. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>>>> important >>>>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>>>> done >>>>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>>>> and >>>>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>>>> they >>>>>> are done. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>>>> succeed >>>>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>>>> to >>>>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>>>> >>>>>> --karl-- >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 22:45:20 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:45:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM, jefsey wrote: > Dear Joe, > some more nationalistic bragging. > No - not really. Although Bell is the undisputed inventor of the telephone as far as marketing is concerned .. the truth is somewhat complex. I don't believe Bell invented the phone first but he did have a great marketing department behind him. Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) of the Internet are of French origin. Yes I agree. Many people built the Internet .. but bottom line the goose that laid the golden egg was Спутник. October 4th 1957 was a brave new day for America. And every ninetysix minutes that Russian satellite passed over the USA and went beep beep beep. That little beep shook the U.S. government to it's core. Shortly after that military funding was significantly increased - the military industrial complex was born and they needed reliable computer systems. The internet was a perfect solution to military needs. Internet protocol is designed to route around error. If one mainframe goes down due to a military strike against the facility you just route the traffic to another containing a backup - one example of the many benefits they saw back then. So I agree with you many were involved - including Louis who built the basic framework for TCP/IP - Cerf just took the credit. But if it was not for U.S. government driven need the Internet as we know it today would not exist. So they have every right to take credit for it. But I don't think they will. Internet protocol is revolutionary in that it places control with the end user. Thats dangerous. Once the NSF figured out the Internet was a significant liability - and dangerous - it became an administrative nightmare hurtling around Washington like a grenade with the pin taken out. Let's not forget the whole thing with ICANN and the numbers administrators is one of the biggest scam against the U.S. public in the history of America. These duties were once - and still are - under U.S. government contract. And the scam is the fact that once the U.S. government loses control of names and especially numbers those resources which clearly belong to the American people are put in the hands of a small group of people for zero dollars. Thats the biggest fraud in U.S. history against the U.S. government taxpayer. I don't think the U.S. government has figured that out yet that they are effectively giving away the property of people of the United States to a group of jackasses trying to play monopoly with names and numbers. When the American public wakes up and realizes what was given away - they are going to be pissed. cheers joe baptista Joe Baptista wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. cheers joe baptista ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 wnew at ip-watch.ch Fri Aug 7 01:04:58 2009 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 07:04:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] unsubscribing In-Reply-To: <279D5B6B-3E42-4239-BE3B-D23E9C6E6B0E@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <200908070505.n77550aU012507@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> I agree. It seems to me there are a couple of people intent on distracting from and undermining any meaningful conversation here. William New, Director/ Editor-in-Chief, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva, Switzerland -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] unsubscribing If the list ever returns to being the productive place it was a few months ago, please someone contact me directly so I may resubscribe. Life's too short. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 04:52:02 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:52:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 08:56:26 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:56:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908070556l513e10ccmf2cf497752323ac@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > Hi Eric, > > True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. > If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will > we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue > to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin > pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your > comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a > development agenda with respect to IG. > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric > Dierker wrote: > > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my > work > > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. > What > > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective > > on the net. > > > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the > > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the > > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > > Development Agenda from Civil Society > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > > the developed world perspective. > > > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Aug 7 08:56:30 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:56:30 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Wolfgang: IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and beyond: 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional committee In this case there three possible consequences: a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial discussion the rest of the world will accept it. b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could paralyze ICANN for the years ahead c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US taxpayers money). 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also an answer to the "How"-question. 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it after five years. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 09:04:50 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:04:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <874c02a20908070604k3eec6066kc02470ff87169868@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > People will do what they have been doing since the inception of ICANN. They will create their own DNS systems outside the U.S. government root, like China did, and Russia, and Turkey and ..... etc. etc. And thats just some of the countries. While I agree the U.S. has a strong claim to DNS they don't control it. No one does. That is the end nature of Internet protocol. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Aug 7 09:41:23 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:41:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7C2F03.1030606@rits.org.br> For sure Cerf & Co. have had a great marketing dept behind them as well... :) which for one reduced to oblivion the seminal work generated by Pouzin and all the packet switching folks. And I liked Jefsey's phrase "the Internet we have to use today". The pyramidal DNS we are obliged to use today, and so on... --c.a. Joe Baptista wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM, jefsey wrote: > >> Dear Joe, >> some more nationalistic bragging. >> > > No - not really. Although Bell is the undisputed inventor of the telephone > as far as marketing is concerned .. the truth is somewhat complex. I don't > believe Bell invented the phone first but he did have a great marketing > department behind him. > > > > Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. > [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers > directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud > (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) > of the Internet are of French origin. > > Yes I agree. Many people built the Internet .. but bottom line the goose > that laid the golden egg was Спутник. October 4th 1957 was a brave new day > for America. And every ninetysix minutes that Russian satellite passed over > the USA and went beep beep beep. > > That little beep shook the U.S. government to it's core. Shortly after that > military funding was significantly increased - the military industrial > complex was born and they needed reliable computer systems. The internet was > a perfect solution to military needs. Internet protocol is designed to route > around error. If one mainframe goes down due to a military strike against > the facility you just route the traffic to another containing a backup - one > example of the many benefits they saw back then. > > So I agree with you many were involved - including Louis who built the basic > framework for TCP/IP - Cerf just took the credit. But if it was not for U.S. > government driven need the Internet as we know it today would not exist. > > So they have every right to take credit for it. But I don't think they will. > Internet protocol is revolutionary in that it places control with the end > user. Thats dangerous. Once the NSF figured out the Internet was a > significant liability - and dangerous - it became an administrative > nightmare hurtling around Washington like a grenade with the pin taken out. > > Let's not forget the whole thing with ICANN and the numbers administrators > is one of the biggest scam against the U.S. public in the history of > America. These duties were once - and still are - under U.S. government > contract. > > And the scam is the fact that once the U.S. government loses control of > names and especially numbers those resources which clearly belong to the > American people are put in the hands of a small group of people for zero > dollars. > > Thats the biggest fraud in U.S. history against the U.S. government > taxpayer. > > I don't think the U.S. government has figured that out yet that they are > effectively giving away the property of people of the United States to a > group of jackasses trying to play monopoly with names and numbers. > > When the American public wakes up and realizes what was given away - they > are going to be pissed. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > Joe Baptista wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is > theirs, all theirs? > > > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to > DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the > DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 10:08:58 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:38:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls Message-ID: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 11:26:57 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:26:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, I do not really like the trolls that have been circulating for the past weeks.. But I stick to this list because I know there are relevant discussions that I would want to listen to. But personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument. I do not expect that such trolls would just simply go away because they do not pay much attention. In my experience, they won't go away easily as trolls thrive on attention. Best to ignore them. So I have filtered my emails from this list, too, because of the overwhelming amount of unrelated discussions and attacks. Regards, Charity On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages > by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators > cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the > right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a > list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in > discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the > messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to > a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Aug 7 12:14:55 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:14:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang, Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional committees can do to get what they want. I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. Lee ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Wolfgang: IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and beyond: 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional committee In this case there three possible consequences: a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial discussion the rest of the world will accept it. b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could paralyze ICANN for the years ahead c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US taxpayers money). 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also an answer to the "How"-question. 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it after five years. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 14:06:15 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & Unsubscribing Message-ID: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Aug 7 14:37:37 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:37:37 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> On 08/07/2009 05:56 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee > on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have > to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. > what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the > world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? The answer to that question is one that depends on whether one unquestioningly accepts certain assumptions as truths or whether one takes a deeper look. The most basic of those assumptions is that there must be exactly one DNS for the internet. Technically that is not true. There can be (and in fact there are) many. Most are badly operated, an unfortunate fact that has caused the disrepute of the operators to unfairly splash onto the idea. What we need to recognize is that the real issue is not the multiplicity of DNS systems or DNS roots or DNS root zone but rather the consistency among them. Users and providers (and people who have to repair the net) do not like and will shun inconsistency. I have written about this, in particular how re-evaluation of our assumptions in this regard, can give us a path out of our centralized regulatory mess and also solve the TLD wars that have consumed a good part of ICANN this last decade: http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html (You could read the whole thing, but for the purposes of this email, you could scan down to the section "The Alternative History") The point of that note is to argue that if we adopt a slightly relaxed definition of "consistent" that the allowance of competing root zones that are disseminated by competing systems of roots gives us a path forward - it allows for the de-centralized growth of DNS and also give those communities that wish to reduce their view of the internet landscape (as some religious groups want to do) a means to do so without constraining those who do not want to go along. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Aug 7 14:43:04 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 02:43:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Roxana and Fouad, > > My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class > geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than > differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to > elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. > It was during the time when the last international governance elections > were held in ICANN. > We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not > with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common > interaction. > > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > > Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. > Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro > democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to > Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. > Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and > acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are > very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and > McTim. > > > * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a > grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. > Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by > people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for > us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. > > --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein * wrote: > > > From: Roxana Goldstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" > Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM > > Hi Eric, Fouad and all, > > I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from > the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the > underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are > "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the > contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in > english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate > to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. > The scenario is different in underdev countries. > > I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table > a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction > and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites > instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, > perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low > participation of underdev people. > > Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I > was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, > even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed > contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to > make something different than what has been done before. > > Best regards, > Roxana > > > 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > > > >> Hi Eric, >> >> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >> development agenda with respect to IG. >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >> Dierker> >> wrote: >> > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my >> work >> > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. >> What >> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >> perspective >> > on the net. >> > >> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on >> the >> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >> the >> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. >> > >> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > >> wrote: >> > >> > From: Fouad Bajwa >> > >> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >> > >> > Dear Friends, >> > >> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >> > the developed world perspective. >> > >> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >> > >> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >> > >> > -- >> > Regards. >> > -------------------------- >> > Fouad Bajwa >> > @skBajwa >> > Answering all your technology questions >> > http://www.askbajwa.com >> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, 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 >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 15:35:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57622.33768.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wow Charity -- right on point!   1st I think you are mixing a bit the concepts of geography with anthropologic socio-political boundaries.  Certainly "where are you comin from" does not refer to a map coordinance. I think we really agree on this  --  Places like Panjabi Tandoor and Hannibals Alps and the great Gobi show much shared significance. (personally I like the fantasy metaphors the best like in Narnia, Lord of the Rings and Dante's Inferno)   But boyo boyo you hit the nail on the head with how different people come from different places.  I also like to look at sameplace cast systems, generation gaps and sex. But once again we should be mindful in setting up governance that we do not segregate, discriminate or make exceptions for differences but rather find commonalities that we can promote.   (I say all this with a deep fear and loathing for commercial globalization of cultures) We must remain as vigilante to preserve heritage and regional security as we are diligante to promote human equality. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Charity Gamboa wrote: From: Charity Gamboa Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Roxana Goldstein" , "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 6:43 PM Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 15:54:28 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:54:28 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908071254r6076c57et6003002e343a8c16@mail.gmail.com> Dear Charity, This is the opportunity that you have elaborated in a very appropriate manner. Your experience sharing is the objective of this discussion and that is what I am trying to encourage here. The development agenda of the Internet, creating the global dialogue, looking at global policy making, where will it happen, who will it affect directly or indirectly, the pressure it creates from the OECD region to the developing region, the impact positive or negative that such efforts will have is what we in the developing world or the developing south are very concerned about and we have to approach this in a very possible developing-developing, south-south, developed-developing, developing-developed manner. I see the upcoming IGF as the the first step to create that opportunity and to share and intervene at very developing and developed perspective but the developing aspect should be looked at as the most crucial area. There are laws in my region related to the Internet that have deprived our basic right to freedom of expression, information sharing, social and economic growth using the Internet. For three years our struggle for reform in a certain law has been transformed into a horrible situation that prevents us to even voice our basic human right of human opinion, where do we stand, lost? Maybe, but is IGF a hope, yes it is.............so why should be fall into just an essence of intellectual discussions and research oriented information analysis whereas we are witnessing the pressures and struggling to get people out of jail just because they weren't educated by the authorities and legislation was established without seeking public opinion, the very public that brought the decision makers to their positions to help develop policies that would help their social and economic development, not eliminate the potential the Internet really offers. Who did they follow, the policies of the developed world without understanding why the developed region made those policies in the first place. We want to be a part of the solution for our people in the developing world, for our friends and civil society members in other developing regions. We want to find a way for improvement, not let influences in small gatherings determine our future without our participation and intervention.......................IG4D is very close to us for our social and economic growth, our political situations, our future. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker > wrote: >> >> Roxana and Fouad, >> >> My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class >> geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than >> differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to >> elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. >> It was during the time when the last international governance elections >> were held in ICANN. >> We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not >> with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common >> interaction. >> >> You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of >> elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note >> they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. >> >> Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. >> Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro >> democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to >> Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. >> Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and >> acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are >> very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and >> McTim. >> >> >> * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a >> grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. >> Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by >> people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for >> us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. >> >> --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: >> >> From: Roxana Goldstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" >> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM >> >> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, >> >> I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from >> the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the >> underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are >> "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the >> contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in >> english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate >> to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. >> The scenario is different in underdev countries. >> >> I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table >> a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction >> and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites >> instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, >> perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low >> participation of underdev people. >> >> Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I >> was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, >> even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed >> contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to >> make something different than what has been done before. >> >> Best regards, >> Roxana >> >> >> 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >>> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >>> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >>> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >>> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >>> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >>> development agenda with respect to IG. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >>> Dierker wrote: >>> > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my >>> > work >>> > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation. >>> > What >>> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >>> > perspective >>> > on the net. >>> > >>> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona >>> > on the >>> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >>> > the >>> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. >>> > >>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> > >>> > From: Fouad Bajwa >>> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >>> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >>> > >>> > Dear Friends, >>> > >>> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >>> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >>> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >>> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >>> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >>> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >>> > the developed world perspective. >>> > >>> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >>> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >>> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >>> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >>> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >>> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >>> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >>> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >>> > >>> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >>> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards. >>> > -------------------------- >>> > Fouad Bajwa >>> > @skBajwa >>> > Answering all your technology questions >>> > http://www.askbajwa.com >>> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, 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 >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Aug 7 17:40:10 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 14:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: 4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com Message-ID: Ginger, I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local, designated specifically to the IGC Re: {Current List) governance at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions on Internet Governance To: igc at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus] Or just move the list to the IGC site: http://www.igcaucus.org/ (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org) --- I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the current list, as it is, and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and spontaneity of the mind. However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to augment the list's purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for IGC conversation. Does anyone second the motion? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 7 17:47:19 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > >> Roxana and Fouad, >> >> My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class >> geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than >> differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to >> elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. >> It was during the time when the last international governance elections >> were held in ICANN. >> We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not >> with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common >> interaction. >> >> You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of >> elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note >> they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. >> >> Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. >> Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro >> democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to >> Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. >> Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and >> acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are >> very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and >> McTim. >> >> >> * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a >> grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. >> Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by >> people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for >> us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. >> >> --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein *wrote: >> >> >> From: Roxana Goldstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" >> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM >> >> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, >> >> I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from >> the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the >> underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are >> "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the >> contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in >> english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate >> to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. >> The scenario is different in underdev countries. >> >> I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table >> a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction >> and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites >> instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, >> perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low >> participation of underdev people. >> >> Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I >> was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, >> even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed >> contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to >> make something different than what has been done before. >> >> Best regards, >> Roxana >> >> >> 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa >> > >> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >>> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >>> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >>> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >>> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >>> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >>> development agenda with respect to IG. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >>> Dierker> >>> wrote: >>> > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my >>> work >>> > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. >>> What >>> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >>> perspective >>> > on the net. >>> > >>> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona >>> on the >>> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >>> the >>> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. >>> > >>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > From: Fouad Bajwa >>> > >>> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >>> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >>> > >>> > Dear Friends, >>> > >>> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >>> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >>> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >>> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >>> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >>> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >>> > the developed world perspective. >>> > >>> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >>> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >>> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >>> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >>> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >>> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >>> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >>> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >>> > >>> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >>> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards. >>> > -------------------------- >>> > Fouad Bajwa >>> > @skBajwa >>> > Answering all your technology questions >>> > http://www.askbajwa.com >>> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, 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 >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 18:00:58 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:00:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908071500p4e0d1bb0uf22b0217767f0125@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > That won't work. It will just create confusion. Because replies to rejected email will still get through and that always seems to cause more confusion then the problems it is due to solve. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 21:03:27 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:03:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908071803p5592980dna8bcc69cea1c070@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > I say good riddance to most of them. It's the elitist intellectuals who got us into this internet governance nonsense in the first place. There is a place for internet governance in representing the will of the users to the marketplace and the the politic twits who govern worldwide. But there are to many elitist intellectuals trying to build bureaucracy .. like ICANN .. to run a false name space. Many people here just don't understand the Internet. They have some sort of fuzzy ideas about it all and think the Internet's the best thing next to the invention of sliced bread. Or something to that end. In reality the Internet is very dangerous - http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - it can kill - http://bit.ly/hcndEanonymously. I'm talking real bullets. Now I warned you back in 1995 the Internet is a dangerous place. All my predictions have come true. Yet every day I see members of the human race become more interdependent on devices attached to a transport medium that is ripe for mass security violations. Internet warfare and surveillance is the future norm not the exception. It's a scary place that needs governance. One message governance has to get to the governments is that they must make themselves less dependent on the Internet. The amount of potential economic damage that can be caused by the Internet at any time by anyone is in my opinion catastrophic. The economic damage done to date is minor in comparison to the damage one rouge root operator can wreak. You can't govern the Internet until you understand that all control is in the hands of the end users - ultimately - the internet is an anarchy. You must build a governance model that serves the anarchy. To many of these elitist intellectuals I find spend more time in argument serving themselves and completely miss the point. Now I think this little factum makes the elitist intellectuals nervous because most become irrelevant in an anarchy. Anarchies are usually build on common sense. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 23:56:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <124715.5869.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger and Yehuda,   I have not heard any of your ideas of governance.  Yes it is true I have heard your ideas on building a Cracy that you are trying to fund.  Yes it is true that everyone does not have the same idea of governance, but who the hell are you thinking you can govern when you hear what you do not like and then run away? --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:40 PM Ginger, I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local, designated specifically to the IGC Re: {Current List) governance at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions on Internet Governance To: igc at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus] Or just move the list to the IGC site: http://www.igcaucus.org/ (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org) --- I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the current list, as it is, and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and spontaneity of the mind. However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to augment the list's purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for IGC conversation. Does anyone second the motion? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 00:28:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <448401.53213.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I truly hope that you obviously very perceptive and good folks do not be content with listening.  I look forward to your contributions. I do hear hopes and needs in your writings and I sense that necessary sense of urgency that drives people to do great things.  --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Carlton Samuels wrote: From: Carlton Samuels Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Charity Gamboa" Cc: "Eric Dierker" , "Roxana Goldstein" , "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:47 PM Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean.  The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared.  For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Aug 8 00:53:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IG Mail List powered by .EWE Message-ID: Karl, Do you have a test-page up on the .EWE tld? I would like to re-direct a .com domain to the .ewe test page target. [i.e.: http://www.abcDomain.com/ >>>redirect>>> http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ (IP address of: test.ewe page) Second question, Can you have a mail list program such as this List set up at a .EWE address for us? [mail list: ig at maillist.ewe or talk at list.ewe or kaffeeklatsch at list.ewe etc...] If Yes, I'll redirect a choice IG domain name to the .ewe maillist server address, then the Folks who want to have a Coffee Klatch/Kaffeeklatsch conversation on Internet Governace can have a space, where it won't impinge on Others trying to do work. - I have read and understand the Agreement: http://www.cavebear.com/eweregistry/agreement.html Payment in Wine of your flavor (Cab, Zin, Barbera, etc...) will be delivered to your door step, next time I'm down to visit Haut's Surf Shop and Bonnie Doons. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 8 04:54:37 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:54:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because she is a co-coordinator of the list. I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. --MM ________________________________ On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Dear IGC members: We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think appropriate. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 13:07:14 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls Message-ID: <207723.18583.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jeff,   Please note and retain copy of Miltons post of filtering all that he does not like to hear.  Next he testifies - fortifying the status quo and maintaining his niche -- it would be good for the listeners to know his understanding is limited to what he wants to hear.   I imagine in his classes you get an F if you do not agree and simply recite back to him his great ideas.  Very classic educational western model.  Very much why private educational institutions that team with business and civic organizations are doing so well.    Miltons style of what governance should be would be cool combined with Lockes Utopia and the ever sought never found benevolent dictator.  It fits right in with bookburning, religious zealots (perhaps Iran - perhaps not), strict Czars and totalitarian communism.   I wonder if when he travels he concocts filters like five star hotels, and chauffeurs to make sure the cries of the downcast, forgotten and sick cannot reach his ears.  Heaven forbid he be detoured from his lofty purpose by concepts like empathy and self organization and user rights.  My goodness I wonder what he does when he gets ill. Certainly not a public place type hospital where he would share space and physician with some horrible low class person like you.   I feel bad for chastizing posts last week who threw the rich and elitists into bad light.  My apologies to Avri.  Perhaps I should rethink that the privileged should be held to a higher standard, which Miltons falls far below.   And please all here remember when next attending a "governance" meeting -- to leave Ghandi at home, to forget that illiterate Lincoln and to never, never, never hold your wine glass with a full hand and try to keep the pinky straight.   But wait -- I should be considered a Troll for criticizing such a man -- censored for calling elitism eltism although he may hurl the greatest insults in the world at us lower classed imbeciles.   Eric Dierker, Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Bachelor of Philosphy,  of Security --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Yehuda Katz" , "Charity Gamboa" , "Ian Peter" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Parminder" , "William Drake" , "Lee W McKnight" , "Roland Perry" , "Roxana Goldstein" , "Wolfgang" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:53 AM Eric and all,   I fully concur with your sentiments.  Seems to me that the governed should be able to freely, openly and transparently participate in IT governance issues.  I believe this is also in line with UN resolution as well. Eric Dierker wrote: > > Ginger and Yehuda, I have not heard any of your ideas of governance.   Yes it is true I have heard your ideas on building a Cracy that you   are trying to fund.  Yes it is true that everyone does not have the   same idea of governance, but who the hell are you thinking you can   govern when you hear what you do not like and then run away?   --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Yehuda Katz wrote:        From: Yehuda Katz        Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the        trolls        To: governance at lists.cpsr.org        Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:40 PM        Ginger,        I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local,        designated specifically to        the IGC        Re:        {Current List)        governance at lists.cpsr.org        For Discussions on Internet Governance        To:        igc at lists.cpsr.org        For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus]        Or just move the list to the IGC site:        http://www.igcaucus.org/        (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org)        ---        I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the        current list, as it is,        and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and        spontaneity of the        mind.        However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to        augment the list's        purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for        IGC conversation.        Does anyone second the motion?        ____________________________________________________________        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:             governance at lists.cpsr.org        To be removed from the list, send any message to:             governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org        For all list information and functions, see:             http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >    ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Aug 8 13:34:06 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:34:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7DB70E.5070703@rits.org.br> Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and other mystery folks. It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out loud! ;) --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, > until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, > we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your > Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your > inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by > trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot > do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to > legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. > Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with > unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a > moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > 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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Aug 8 19:17:58 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:17:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A7E07A6.3000502@rits.org.br> The central problem here resides in the scope of the list. If we want an open discussion like an open air lunch forum in which anyone can come (including people who are after things other than the general objectives of the forum), fine, let us continue with it -- this is what this list is today. But here we try to build consensus on key themes based on views we bring from non-profit organizations concerned or involved with the themes of Internet governance, sometimes we vote, we try to build a unified position to be submitted to fora such as ICANN and the IGF. So it is up to us to decide which way to go. I am sure more people will be asking to leave, or simply unsubscribe, if the list continues as is. What kind of online caucus we want? This is what we need to answer. I think all of us want a plural caucus in which opinions are diverse and the resulting debate might lead us to build consensus, but first and foremost, I for one want a caucus in which I know whom I am debating with. Finally, I am puzzled (and curious) as to what class or faith Mr Dierker (whom I do not know about either) is stamping me with. Nor his qualifications to teach Dr Müller (I for one did not request lessons). frt rgds --c.a. Eric Dierker wrote: > (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of > Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same > words verbatim!!! > > October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed > Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: > Membership. > > It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was > inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency > meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion > of undesirables. After much debate using words such as Kikes and > Niggers the following was concluded; > > "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or > about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the > list. (club) We would at least clean up....." > > The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith > and on class. This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a > Country Club. Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and > prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive > them lord, for they know not what they do. > > Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' > deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my > brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. > > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] > Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian > Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 > PM > > > Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom > one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We > would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and > other mystery folks. > > It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. > > We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out > loud! ;) > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the >> list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the >> ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In >> the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email >> filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of >> messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". >> All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the >> list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action >> alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion >> and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and >> overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not >> participate in discussions with unproductive members and use >> filters to control the messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a >> change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and >> opine if you think appropriate. >> >> 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Aug 8 21:03:44 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: 4A7E07A6.3000502@rits.org.br Message-ID: Carlos, I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: 1. Augmenting the list http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html 2. Create a nEwe Space http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html - I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the Mother of Invention. I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the wings of this mail-list group. I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our postition, and reach for something higher. Enough Crawling... Evolve - Holism - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism University of California, Berkeley http://www.berkeley.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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Aug 8 22:37:56 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:37:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7E3684.9050906@rits.org.br> Only in California, as the say goes ... :) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > Carlos, > > I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: > > 1. Augmenting the list > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html > > 2. Create a nEwe Space > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html > > - > > I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. > > It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the > Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses > who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the > realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. > > I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, > Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: > O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the > Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many > do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world > 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. > > This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, > Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the > Mother of Invention. > > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the > wings of this mail-list group. > > I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our > postition, and reach for something higher. > > Enough Crawling... Evolve > > - > Holism - Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism > > University of California, Berkeley > http://www.berkeley.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 22:54:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 19:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) Message-ID: <115649.70701.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Excellent Carlos, (your pedigree preceeds you of course) --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso ca at rits.org.br> wrote: The central problem here resides in the scope of the list. If we want an open discussion like an open air lunch forum in which anyone can come (including people who are after things other than the general objectives of the forum), fine, let us continue with it -- this is what this list is today. Please set forth the general objectives of the list and where they are located. the stuff I read sounds like a marketing and fundraising advertising press release  http://cpsr.org/issues/gis/tunisrpt/  But here we try to build consensus on key themes based on views we bring from non-profit organizations concerned or involved with the themes of Internet governance,(I have not seen a vote here. I know of no person elected here and I do not understand your use of the word theme.  sometimes we vote, we try to build a unified position to be submitted to fora such as ICANN and the IGF. So it is up to us to decide which way to go. (I have never seen a position tendered to ICANN from this list -- I must read them, where are they?) I am sure more people will be asking to leave, or simply unsubscribe, if the list continues as is. (more important -- how many have been excluded? Not just by membership criteria but by shunning) What kind of online caucus we want? This is what we need to answer. I think all of us want a plural caucus in which opinions are diverse and the resulting debate might lead us to build consensus, but first and foremost, I for one want a caucus in which I know whom I am debating with. (yes I have known those who judge the worth of what a woman says by her pedigree rather than the value of what she has to offer.  Yes I have often been lied to about the agenda of those with which I debated  --  It is good to look a fellow in the eye and judge his conviction -- but it is wrong not to allow a man a place at the table based upon his lack of an NGO triple digit salary) Finally, I am puzzled (and curious) as to what class or faith Mr Dierker (whom I do not know about either) is stamping me with. Nor his qualifications to teach Dr Müller (I for one did not request lessons). (if you still think I care about your class or faith you cannot read. I am however quite interested in anyone who has lived in Canada & Brazil and has lived half a lifetime running "from" rather than "to") frt rgds As for me, know this;  I am a highwayman. I am a bastard and illegitimate son. I have lived in a tent, in a cave, on five continents, alone, in a commune and in jail.  I have suffered false charges and have also evaded prosecution. I have prosecuted others and have suffered the slings and arrows of a fight. I have held sick and dying children and I have children of my own. I am a cancer survivor. My origins are said to be Irish and Italian, but I was raised by German Americans, in the heart of Navajoland and my family includes my Vietnamese wife.  But I do professionally analyze and strategize computer models for those interested in manipulating criteria bases to qualify for a gain. Would any of that be on your membership criteria?? --c.a. Eric Dierker wrote: > (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of > Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same > words verbatim!!! > > October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed > Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: > Membership. > > It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was > inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency > meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion > of undesirables.  After much debate using words such as Kikes and > Niggers the following was concluded; > > "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or > about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the > list. (club) We would at least clean up....." > > The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith > and on class.  This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a > Country Club.  Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and > prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive > them lord, for they know not what they do. > > Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' > deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my > brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. > > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] > Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian > Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 > PM > > > Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom > one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We > would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and > other mystery folks. > > It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. > > We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out > loud! ;) > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the >> list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the >> ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In >> the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email >> filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of >> messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". >> All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the >> list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action >> alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion >> and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and >> overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not >> participate in discussions with unproductive members and use >> filters to control the messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a >> change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and >> opine if you think appropriate. >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 23:29:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <4A7E3684.9050906@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <433942.92604.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I thought SA gave apartide a ride.  I thought the good ole south gave seperate but equal a shot. I understand bi-cameral, and upper and lower houses.  I understand the ICANN experiment ridded itself of stakeholders representation. I went through check point Charley and I have visited areas around the Palestinian "borders" -- but I do not quite understand two lists for governance. If I am not mistaken Brazil went through a period where "passing" was required for some races to join a civil society.   Of some relevance is my assistant & daughter attending Berkeley as a Society and the Environment coed. My son graduating UCSanta Cruz and my own degrees from California Western School of Law and the Public Safety Training Academy in San Diego. So my opinions may be skewed. (but in my defense my Eldest is Director of Operations for a New York congressman) --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Yehuda Katz" Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:37 AM Only in California, as the say goes ... :) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > Carlos, > > I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: > > 1.  Augmenting the list > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html > > 2. Create a nEwe Space > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html > > - > > I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. > > It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the > Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses > who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the > realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. > > I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, > Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: > O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the > Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many > do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world > 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. > > This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, > Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the > Mother of Invention. > > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the > wings of this mail-list group. > > I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our > postition, and reach for something higher. > > Enough Crawling... Evolve > > - > Holism - Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism > > University of California, Berkeley > http://www.berkeley.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 9 01:10:18 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 22:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation Message-ID: <890589.58284.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> In that it is not the governance that needs to be protected from the users. In that it is the users that must be protected from overbearing, self appointed, non-representative rulers in governance;   Know all persons by these presence.    1. All internet users regardless of Race, Color, National or Geographic Origins, sex, age, language, Education or lack thereof shall be treated equally.  (we may want to take a page from A2K and add handicapped, a page from our Gay and Lesbian users and add sexual preference, and just to be careful add faith and creed)   2. No organization shall be created that in any way purports to govern the internet that excludes any class or segment of society, including simple users without other stake, from representation therein.   3. No organization shall be formed by any nation in their sole national capacity that purports to govern any other nations useage of the Internet.   4. No commercial or governmental interest shall ever be given priority over the rights of users.   5. No government action shall in any way ever cause there to be an interruption in user access to the Internet.   6. No private or commercial provider shall allow or promote or cause to ocurr any abridgement of the basic human rights of Speech, Faith, Press or due process.   7. No restrictions upon the useage of the internet shall be promulgated by anything less than legitimate duly elected individuals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 9 02:46:43 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:46:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7E70D3.5020605@cavebear.com> On 08/08/2009 06:03 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol I had very little to do with the development of email structures and protocols. Much credit for that goes to Dave Crocker. My one claim to fame for email is that way, way, way back (in the early 1980's) at Interactive Systems (the first commercial Unix company) I build an email system built on an underlying "queued file transfer mechanism" (hop-by-hop transfer of a chunk of application layer data from one program to another) upon which we built an email system (and printing system, and many other systems). Eric A. of Sendmail fame heard me talk about that at a Usenix in San Francisco and what I said may or may not have had an effect on what eventually became "sendmail", a program that worked on much the same underlying idea. My main work back in the ancient era was on operating system security for the US and UK governments (formal proof of correctness, capability based architectures, etc) and secure networking. Unfortunately most of that work is unavailable to the public and probably won't be publicly publishable until several more decades pass. But you can partially blame me for helping cause the split of IP from TCP (in the original Cerf/Kahn design TCP was a monolithic protocol), CIFS and SNMP and some other stuff. What all of this is to say is that we ought not to deify any one of us who were lucky to be part of "the early days" of the net. I certainly am not any smarter than many newcomers. Which leads me a link to internet governance - I have noticed that users of the net tend to give too much deference to technical assertions from some of us "old guys". We who built the net have a lot of pride in the net and that pride can induce a subtle parental protective suspicion and hostility against new ideas that might change our baby. My favorite phrase is one attributed to Thomas Aquinas: "Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus" ("The argument from authority is the weakest.") - I like the irony of using a saint, an authority of the Catholic church as an assertion of authority to say that assertions of authority might be wrong. As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. Most of us have the ability to "question authority" in a political context. But to make internet governance work we are going to have to learn to be equally skeptical of assertions of technical necessity and be sufficiently skilled in the technical arts that we can make valid independent assessments. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 18:33:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 15:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <4A7DB70E.5070703@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same words verbatim!!!   October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: Membership.   It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion of undesirables.  After much debate using words such as Kikes and Niggers the following was concluded;   "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. (club) We would at least clean up....."    The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith and on class.  This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a Country Club.  Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive them lord, for they know not what they do.   Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 PM Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and other mystery folks. It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out loud! ;) --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, > until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, > we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your > Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your > inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by > trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot > do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to > legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. > Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with > unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a > moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Aug 9 09:31:08 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 06:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: 4A7E70D3.5020605@cavebear.com Message-ID: karl scribe > As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. - And this statement gives rise to: Why diversity is important. (The possibility of something being one way or another way) That question falls into the field of 'Complexity Science' What Makes a System Complex? What defines a system as complex, as opposed to being merely “complicated”? The answer lies in the presence of four factors: * A population of diverse agents, all of which are * Connected, with behaviors and actions that are * Interdependent, and that exhibit * Adaptation. Understanding complex systems is important for several reasons: * They’re often unpredictable. * They sometimes produce events with global ramifications. * They’re remarkably robust and can withstand substantial trauma and variation. The internet is in a state of 'Emergance'(as defined in Complexity Science), the spontaneous creation of order and functionality from the bottom up. Icann has not grasped that concept, nor do I belive it to grasped that concept. Jon Postel's premis has been exploited by commercial economics, because of the 'Mentality' of those in Icann. Its not just the Greed, the mentally-invisioned amount$ which can be Capitolized via channels provided by Icann, it is also the created perception of Power. My appologies Milton, but maybe if your publisher would have named your book diffrently than 'Ruling the Root', 'the mentality' of Internet success would be different. (I'm not blaming, I'm just saying). So if your intrested in learning about Complexity Science, here a link to a download (which I would not normally provide), but I think it would help some of you to open your eyes. http://www.tactools.org/ttc-video-undestanding-complexity.html -- Ginger and Ian want to get some work done, my suggestions were only to help them accomplish that objective. Let's see what they have to say. If you don't come to the Mountain, the Mountains is gonna come to you. Kind regards____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 9 15:27:53 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:57:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC members at the LAC Regional IGF Message-ID: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Aug 9 16:05:20 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:05:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] UNGIS: Invitation --> Open Consultations on the Financial Mechanisms / 8-9 October 2009 / Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland In-Reply-To: <4a71d8e8.09b6660a.50d2.ffffd9c5@mx.google.com> References: <4a71d8e8.09b6660a.50d2.ffffd9c5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <004101ca192c$ba1c4230$2e54c690$@com.br> I will be glad to send to my network. Best, 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: Renate Bloem (Gmail) [mailto:renate.bloem at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] UNGIS: Invitation --> Open Consultations on the Financial Mechanisms / 8-9 October 2009 / Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland FYI -------------- Dear Renate, As you have seen few minutes ago, in my previous mail we have distributed widely an invitation letter to the Open Consultation on the Financial Mechanisms for Meeting the Challenges of ICT for Development to be held from 8-9 October 2009 at Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland. This meeting is organized jointly by chair and co-chairs of the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), i.e. ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP and UNECA. This event will be hosted by ITU. We are very much interested in contributions to this meeting from the civil society. We would like to request you to forward this document to the civil society stakeholders using all possible information channels. Contributions to the meeting may be submitted to the UNGIS Secretariat not later than 20 September 2009. Online registration will be opened shortly at www.ungis.org . 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 Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 18:04:22 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:04:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 18:06:15 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:06:15 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Karl: Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > On 08/07/2009 05:56 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee > > on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have > > to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. > > what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the > > world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > The answer to that question is one that depends on whether one > unquestioningly accepts certain assumptions as truths or whether one > takes a deeper look. > > The most basic of those assumptions is that there must be exactly one > DNS for the internet. > > Technically that is not true. > > There can be (and in fact there are) many. Most are badly operated, an > unfortunate fact that has caused the disrepute of the operators to > unfairly splash onto the idea. > > What we need to recognize is that the real issue is not the multiplicity > of DNS systems or DNS roots or DNS root zone but rather the consistency > among them. Users and providers (and people who have to repair the net) > do not like and will shun inconsistency. > > I have written about this, in particular how re-evaluation of our > assumptions in this regard, can give us a path out of our centralized > regulatory mess and also solve the TLD wars that have consumed a good > part of ICANN this last decade: > > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html > > (You could read the whole thing, but for the purposes of this email, you > could scan down to the section "The Alternative History") > > The point of that note is to argue that if we adopt a slightly relaxed > definition of "consistent" that the allowance of competing root zones > that are disseminated by competing systems of roots gives us a path > forward - it allows for the de-centralized growth of DNS and also give > those communities that wish to reduce their view of the internet > landscape (as some religious groups want to do) a means to do so without > constraining those who do not want to go along. > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 18:15:01 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:15:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for the interesting analysis, Wolfgang. Comments of mine below > -----Original Message----- > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. I am not sure what you mean by the "how question." If you mean that DoC and the Obama admin have to figure out how to avoid doing what Congress wants, that is easy. Until and unless Congress passes a law (and that raises more problems for a US-centric position than you might think) DoC can do whatever it wants. If you mean that DoC has to figure out what to replace the JPA with, again I see no problem here. It can take the advice of IGP (yeh, they do that a lot, eh?) and instigate an international agreement; it can extend the JPA, it can let it expire and do nothing. What matters is the policy they are pursuing. > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government This is a very likely outcome, but I cannot fathom why you call it "creative innovation." It's basically the status quo. Indeed, it doesn't sound that different from what Congress advocated. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 18:26:00 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:26:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA contract....but the JPA???? Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national government department looking over its shoulder. In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for private law. They are quite distinct. > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini > Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; > igf_members at intgovforum.org > Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in > the > > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic > nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sun Aug 9 21:10:43 2009 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: It is not impossible to imagine ways of rooting ICANN in, say, California private law once it's 'set free', but it is not easy, and hard to make stick without something as heavy-duty as a treaty. So in practice, I think the two issues are more tightly coupled than advocates of the 'cut ICANN loose' vision want to admit. I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the > Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? > > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can > remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for > private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national > government department looking over its shoulder. > > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 9 22:51:37 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:51:37 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation > of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for > multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply involved with DNSSEC. His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect of blocking competing roots. (He may have changed his opinion since then, but I have not heard to the contrary.) His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the root" (or "trust anchor".) From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) record. That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not. But again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not completely off base, would be fairly easy to do. For a huge TLD such as .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this. But from my (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent. Rather that the parent provides crypto materials of the child. This suggests to me that a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent. I.e. multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this. But for a couple of years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody has taken me to task. It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 9 23:21:11 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:21:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> On 08/09/2009 03:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost > the Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? Given the nonesense that is flying around the US political system right now - for example the "birthers" denial that our President is Constitutionally entitled to hold office - I don't think it is unrealistic to believe that those who want to replace our current Congress Critters in next year's elections will use any weapon that comes to hand, including asserting that dropping the oversight of the Memorandum of Understanding/JPA (same thing) would be near treasonous abandonment of John Wayne and America. The world of US political discourse is so negatively charged that we have to realize that many Congress Critters could realistically feel that we are facing a Neo-McCarthy era in which being negatively labeled by an opponent could lead to the end of political effectiveness if not a political career. Of course in reality we would hope that Congress Critters would act with reason and insight. But is it wrong to leaven hope with a bit of recognition of the poisonous context in which Congress Critters have to act? > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN > can remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional > basis for private contracts - without having an overlay of a > politicized national government department looking over its > shoulder. When I read ICANN's plan for splattering itself it was pretty clear that the intent was to abandon most ties with the US except as necessary to maintain existing contracts. It was a bizarre system of corporations in various places with unique laws in which it seemed that the board of ICANN-US would also occupy seats on each ICANN-elsewhere. And registrars and registries would make contracts with the nearby ICANN-somewhere under the laws of that -somewhere. It would be a mess of divine proportions that would totally frustrate even the most vacuous Enron-like conception of accountability. It is extraordinarily difficult to say that ICANN is California without also saying that ICANN is USA. The laws of the two places are very interdependent - for example the duties of board members, although mainly defined by California, are strongly affected by Federal laws about immunity of volunteer directors and the activities of bodies, such as ICANN, that have Federal tax exemptions. I like California law (I am, of course, biased) and I operate California corporations. But that means that I am more than painfully familiar with how readily The Feds reach in and tell us what to do and who to do it with (or more frequently, who not to do it with.) > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. I'd be happy to accept that, but I don't know how that could be in concrete terms. We have to remember that ICANN was formed in a whirl in which foundations of authority were simply ignored in a shell-game like atmosphere. That lack of clear lines is coming back to haunt. ICANN and NTIA's source of authority is more like that of Emperor Norton of San Francisco than the former Emperors of China, i.e. a product of assertion and short-term acquiescence by a few rather than long-term acquiescence by many. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:34:51 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:34:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC members at the LAC Regional IGF In-Reply-To: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> References: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908092134y73ac74f9j9d1879775e0c9233@mail.gmail.com> ok Ginger, see you there Roxana 2009/8/9 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, > > I know that other IGC members will be at the regional IGF in Rio August > 11th to 13th, as I will be. Can we meet at the first coffee break on > Tuesday? Who will be there? > > I look forward to seeing you there. > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Aug 10 01:04:41 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:04:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 10 04:31:05 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:31:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Here's my blog post on the latest DC follies regarding the JPA: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/8/9/4283282.html ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:04 AM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 10 04:35:23 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:35:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F40@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >It is not impossible to imagine ways of rooting ICANN in, say, California >private law once it's 'set free', but it is not easy, and hard to make >stick without something as heavy-duty as a treaty. So in practice, I >think the two issues are more tightly coupled than advocates of the 'cut >ICANN loose' vision want to admit. Agreed, which is why we (IGP) proposed that the transition should be rooted in an international agreement. Unfortunately, the Congress is not calling for binding ICANN to Calif. law (or even U.S. law) it is calling for putting a JPA-like process in place indefinitely. I hope you'd agree that this gives us more of the worst of both worlds scenario... >I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about >four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet the >contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. Probably so. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the > Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? > > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can > remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for > private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national > government department looking over its shoulder. > > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Mon Aug 10 08:55:21 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:55:21 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908100555r36a38cbcqe42abbe029401a6b@mail.gmail.com> DNSSEC is a bit of a joke and no one should consider it seriously. Essentially DNSSEC attempts to address a bug in DNS that has existed since the beginning of DNS deployment. The security issues in DNS have nothing to do with the DNS protocol but are directly related to issues in the UDP transport protocol. DNSSEC attempts to address these issues by incorporating an addition layer of complexity into the DNS through the deployment of trust anchors along the DNS hierarchy. The actual security issue in the UDP protocol is never addressed in DNSSEC. That security issue exists because of the nature of the UDP protocol. Without going into the complex details let me say that UDP is easy to spoof. DNSSEC just makes it slightly harder to spoof. A solution to the UDP problem has been developed by Bernstein. It's called DNSCurve. http://bit.ly/pJVq4 enjoy joe baptista p.s. at one time DNSSEC could jeopardize alternative root operations. That has been fixed but to my knowledge never tested. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation >> of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for >> multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? >> > > I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. > (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) > > A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply > involved with DNSSEC. His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect > of blocking competing roots. (He may have changed his opinion since then, > but I have not heard to the contrary.) > > His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, > a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain > of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the > root" (or "trust anchor".) > > From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need > to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) > record. That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing > root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs > that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an > appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. > > It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under > non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots > to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not. But > again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. > > (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not > completely off base, would be fairly easy to do. For a huge TLD such as > .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of > a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. > example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) > > Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this. But from my > (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a > child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a > root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent. Rather that > the parent provides crypto materials of the child. This suggests to me that > a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent > itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by > the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent. I.e. > multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. > > Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this. But for a couple of > years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody > has taken me to task. > > It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a > DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios. > > > --karl-- > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 Aug 10 10:00:55 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:00:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes >I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva >about four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet >the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but >years old. They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and they don't want to talk about the next. Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. (Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:18:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Message-ID: <20237.43354.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> All these comments are not from some stone tablet - they are not immutable -- I offer for consideration only.   Congress can stop funding for DoC "projects".  (if dad tells son to go to store to get beer, dad and son are in agreement  ---  son must ask mom for money ---  Mom says no -- no beer.) Non profit status -- hmm a charitable that receives more than 90% of its revenues from fees charged for license, service or privilege  --  not quite kosher. Another state and/or competitive bidder can challenge the removal of an essential government subcontract. The feds can revoke the "whatever the hell kind of 501(c) 3" status ICANN operates under.   California can revoke permission not to pay tax.  California can not enter into a treaty. ICANN cannot enter into negotiations with countries without California and the Fed permission. California can insist on a more stringent non citizen hiring policy.   The mechanism for the JPA may allow for total suspension of ICANNs right to collect and maintain funds for services pending blah, blah, blah. The US Gov can totally nationalize all functions and operations of ICANN. HSA could, in the blink of an eye seize all assets of ICANN.   So I do not think we are talking about what could be done. We are talking about what should be done.   Sorry just the musings of a Troll ;-) --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: "Milton L Mueller" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 5:04 AM Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will.  what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:30:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908100555r36a38cbcqe42abbe029401a6b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <244944.76851.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Come on you guys!  Look at these two consecutive posts.  You two are both of an engineering ilk and yet you use totally non-standard language and even different adjectives, nouns and adverbs -- not to mention names, to speak of exactly the same thing.   If engineers cannot even agree on the same language to use to describe a process, how could we possibly draft any comprehensive or even partial guidelines to governance. --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Joe Baptista wrote: From: Joe Baptista Subject: Re: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl Auerbach" Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 12:55 PM DNSSEC is a bit of a joke and no one should consider it seriously. Essentially DNSSEC attempts to address a bug in DNS that has existed since the beginning of DNS deployment. The security issues in DNS have nothing to do with the DNS protocol but are directly related to issues in the UDP transport protocol. DNSSEC attempts to address these issues by incorporating an addition layer of complexity into the DNS through the deployment of trust anchors along the DNS hierarchy.  The actual security issue in the UDP protocol is never addressed in DNSSEC. That security issue exists because of the nature of the UDP protocol. Without going into the complex details let me say that UDP is easy to spoof. DNSSEC just makes it slightly harder to spoof. A solution to the UDP problem has been developed by Bernstein. It's called DNSCurve. http://bit.ly/pJVq4 enjoy joe baptista p.s. at one time DNSSEC could jeopardize alternative root operations. That has been fixed but to my knowledge never tested. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply involved with DNSSEC.  His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect of blocking competing roots.  (He may have changed his opinion since then, but I have not heard to the contrary.) His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the root" (or "trust anchor".) >From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) record.  That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not.  But again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not completely off base, would be fairly easy to do.  For a huge TLD such as .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this.  But from my (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent.  Rather that the parent provides crypto materials of the child.  This suggests to me that a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent.  I.e. multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this.  But for a couple of years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody has taken me to task. It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios.                --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ----------------------------------------------------------------  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:34:29 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Face it.  As they operate now. They could not be in compliance anywhere. Why doesn't someone ask the "jurisdiction" if they want ICANN. --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:00 PM In message , at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes > I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about four seconds after the US government cut the tether.  And I bet the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and they don't want to talk about the next. Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. (Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 10 11:14:12 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:14:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <763885.39142.qm at web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 07:34:29 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes >Face it.  As they operate now. They could not be in compliance anywhere. >Why doesn't someone ask the "jurisdiction" if they want ICANN. I don't know what you mean by "compliance" in this context. If it's company and taxation law, and somewhere they can have the most prudent framework for contracts with third parties, then all the places I mentioned should be fine. >--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Roland Perry wrote: > > >From: Roland Perry >Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:00 PM > > >In message , >at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of >Law writes >> I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva >>about four seconds after the US government cut the tether.  And I bet >>the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but >>years old. > >They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of >those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and >they don't want to talk about the next. > >Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up >with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits >in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed >the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. > >(Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for >not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom >from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). >-- 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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Aug 10 13:23:37 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:23:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <61a136f40908101023q66f94f72wa7146b41d71f4c37@mail.gmail.com> The vast majority of the domestic audience tends to be woefully ignorant of the political machinations in Washington! But it would be imprudent to think those of us on the periphery don't know when "we hear the voice of Jacob even as we feel the hand of Esau". What you have is convergence of views to the point of action. You message in a way that will get the reaction you want. And any lobbyist worth his/her retainer would know how to message every single congressperson for effect. The play made is purely a tactical maneuver! Carlton Samuels On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Here's my blog post on the latest DC follies regarding the JPA: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/8/9/4283282.html > > ________________________________________ > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:04 AM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Milton, > > You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC > budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line > with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and > policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those > including funding for future DoC budgets : ). > > But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems > want re ICANN or anything else. > > However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky > bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least > Wolfgang's 3rd option. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless > Congress passes a law. > > When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" > and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to > do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, > and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. > > Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on > the IGP site as soon as I can. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > > Wolfgang, > > > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight > committee. > > > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > > committees can do to get what they want. > > > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > > halle.de] > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > > Avri: > > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree > (that > > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that > the > > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > > > > Wolfgang: > > > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > > beyond: > > > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > > committee > > In this case there three possible consequences: > > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. > In > > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > > taxpayers money). > > > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US > and > > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). > However > > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > > an answer to the "How"-question. > > > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand > feed > > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > > after five years. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Aug 10 16:02:43 2009 From: jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hunker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:02:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] conference of interest to subscribers of the governance list Message-ID: <00f501ca19f5$86a0af80$93e20e80$@cmu.edu> All, As General Chair, I am pleased to invite you and your colleagues to attend the upcoming International Symposium on Global Information Governance (ISGIG), to be held in Prague, Czech Republic on September 15-17. The Internet of the Future is the theme of ISGIG 2009. ISGIG 2009 is unique in being specifically designed to bring together and improve communication among diverse and normally separate communities -- 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 among different constituencies. Participants will hear from and interact with a distinguished line-up of international experts in the fields of Internet governance, privacy and innovative technology trends. The agenda has been designed to offer many opportunities for networking and open discussion among the delegates and speakers. Keynote speakers at ISGIG 2009: * Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, * Stewart Baker, Former First Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.A., * Jacques Bus, Head of Unit, Trust & Security in ICT, Research, European Commission, * David Farber, Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.A. We hope you will attend this important conference to participate in the discussions and hear from people of influence in this ever-changing field. Further information can be found at www.isgig.org Thank you, Jeffrey Hunker Jeffrey Hunker Associates LLC 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 03:11:06 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:11:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment on the list! Rui 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because > she is a co-coordinator of the list. > > > > I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my > email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list > for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or > irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed > up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. > > > > --MM > > > ------------------------------ > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages > by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators > cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the > right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a > list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in > discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the > messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to > a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 06:07:46 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:52:46 +0545 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger and All, I would fully back the suggestions put forward by Charity. The best way is to ignore the trollers' message. I would stick with this mailing list though I had some difficult time reading those trolls. So, now I have been filtering and archiving these group emails, skipping my inbox. I go through them in my free time which saves me from getting disturbed just in case I happen to go though the trolls. One problem of this filtering is that if there is need of any URGENT response, it just gets skipped. Here in South Asia, we have a different versions of common story about a mischievous child, who mislead everyone in the village shouting "Loin Loin, taking my goat" and asking for help. After many such attempt to fool the villages, one other day, the Loin actually takes away his goat, and no one turns up for his help. Hope, every story has a moral and we do not have to become a deaf villagers Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Ginger, > > I do not really like the trolls that have been circulating for the past > weeks.. But I stick to this list because I know there are relevant > discussions that I would want to listen to. But personal attacks are a sign > of a weak argument. > > I do not expect that such trolls would just simply go away because they do > not pay much attention. In my experience, they won't go away easily as > trolls thrive on attention. Best to ignore them. So I have filtered my > emails from this list, too, because of the overwhelming amount of unrelated > discussions and attacks. > > Regards, > Charity > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Aug 11 06:30:06 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:30:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A81482E.60105@rits.org.br> Given the situation of the list (unfortunately, the main means the caucus has at its disposal to build consensus -- and I insist the list is not the caucus) and the apparent impossibility of trying a resubscription process with new rules, this is what I am doing as well. But we should really think of ways to use Internet tools so we can express our views knowing, at a minimum, whom we are debating with. frt rgds --c.a. Rui Correia wrote: > Milton > > That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the > 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment > on the list! > > Rui > > 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > >> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because >> she is a co-coordinator of the list. >> >> >> >> I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my >> email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list >> for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or >> irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed >> up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 11 06:39:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:09:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A814A6F.5030907@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, >> we are >> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >> internet >> governance might mean. > > This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the > JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's > linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should > exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to > continue the JPA." Hi Bill I also looked back a couple of emails where i had characterized an insistently expressed viewpoint that people who are seeking to get ICANN out of US control are wasting their time as being 'unabashed neo-colonial'. And you offered rather violent resistance - in terms of some very extreme expressions and advice of good manners - to my expression. Just for old memories sake :). No particular purpose here. parminder > How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in his helpful post? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > >> >> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >> coming up >> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >> disinterested >> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >> otherwise. >> >> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >> than a >> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >> >>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress >>>> in the >>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>> >>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician >>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled >>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>> >>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and >>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>> TLDs >>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be >>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. >>> >>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>> move. >>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>> questions >>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones >>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>> matters.) >>> >>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>> contracts >>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the >>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane >>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would >>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted >>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract >>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants >>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It >>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>> >>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing >>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in >>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>> entity >>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>> doing >>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>> nature? >>> >>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend >>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is >>> not >>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of >>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>> >>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded >>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that >>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as >>> good as most of the better places. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the >>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>> >>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>> vanish >>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>> >>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>> supposed >>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular >>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any >>> query source or query subject. >>> >>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important >>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>> >>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done >>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>> are done. >>> >>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed >>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>> >>> --karl-- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 07:40:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fw: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation Message-ID: <42110.19206.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I send this via this strange self sent and forwarding as I participate as a troll on a few different lists. And respect the desire, although outdated, against cross posting. The downtrodden GA list is so beat upon by ICANN that to even be seen there is the kiss of death for activity in governance. Such greats as Mueller, Flemming, Baptista, Thrush, Gaetano, Karl, Crispin and Crocker are archived to prove they got their Governance start there. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Hugh Dierker wrote: From: Hugh Dierker Subject: Fw: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation To: "GA" Cc: "Eric Dierker" Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 11:25 AM I do not think this is enough.  It is not a matter of the 3.  It is a matter of "Complex Systems".  In a natural business cycling sense we should see more failure. A system that is truly open and free should see more risk and more loss. On the one hand this minimal closure rate indicates not enough trying. Therefore not enough incentive to risk the cost of participation. OTOH it indicates a lack of competitiveness involving winners and losers.   How many tries for the lightbulb?  What was each try?  We cannot possibly be trying hard enough to find the best business models if we are not in the process of eliminating those that do not work.   I was very heartened to read of the Press Release regarding the Twin Cities Sero grand predictions for a fairly new concept .Artist which will at least strive to be a community networking inter and intra community networking concept.  I was likewise very pleased to see some momentum going for .gay. I was quite bummed out to see both of them fall prey to fairly typical "Press Release" for an "offereing" stylized announcements and suggesting rather typical business models.  They seem to stand out in concept but are rather dull in inventiveness for people to invest of themselves into the origin of the species.   When I am so blessed to be able to teach marketing and business in rather socialist -Mexico and rather communist-Vietnam the first lessons that I pound into the skulls of mush is the Right to Fail. ICANN is not promoting this concept. They somehow tie in the concept of "failure of the system" which is quite a bogeyman in engineering, to the business model where the right to fail is paramount to invention, innovation, synergy and evolution of our kind.   Everyday I scan my Spam for the failures. I read a few and then I pause and try to think what I could learn from each one -- what not to do - what fire not to stick my hand in - and then I give thanks for those who try.   (dictated not read ;-} Eric Hugh Dierker --- On Mon, 8/10/09, ICANN News Alert wrote: From: ICANN News Alert Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation To: hdierker2204 at yahoo.com Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 3:32 PM ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-10aug09-en.htm ________________________________ Three Registrars Lose Accreditation 10 August 2009 Three registrars have lost their accreditation. South America Domains Ltd doing business as namefrog.com, Simply Named Inc (SimplyNamed.com) and Tahoe Domains Inc have not had their Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) renewed upon expiration for failure to comply with the requirements of the RAA. Letters have been sent to each registrar outlining the decision and reason behind the decision. Related links Letter to South American Domains http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-friedman-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 229K] Letter to Simply Named http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-pearcy-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 205K] Letter to Tahoe Domains http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-ball-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 229K] ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com Manage your subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9830028&l=6333&s=MCQD&m=253868&c=165637 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 08:06:06 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Miltons' Matrix is Wrong Message-ID: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I thank Milton for his contributions and respect is intellect.  I read his posts and marketed "blogging". I found his logic quite persuasive. But then I saw the problem. The problem with the whole JPA mix. The problem is the exact opposite of the engineering conundrum of not settling on common language. The problem is the (way overused) inability to think outside the goldfish bowl. The problem is -- "being invested" in the status quo.   The ICANN model is not. It is by know means what Miltons' students would come up with if assigned the task of building a model for Internet Governance.  It is like a bad patchwork of self interest and preservation.  To even use the same language to discuss ICANN and the way it should be is counterproductive and misleading.   We should be using words that sound like our respective countries' declaration of independence and bills of rights. We should be using terms that describe interconnectivity and progress and representation.  We should be using concepts like dispute resolution and bodies of standards and norms and goals and aspirations not restrictions on use and innovation.   Governance must be for the governed not for those who would govern. Monies and energies and jurisdictions and corporate structures should be implemented  and spent for the purpose of openness and transparency not preservation of the structures.  If we must tear down to build then so be it. But we cannot just do a geographic and move existing errors or add on to an existing weak foundation. We must break out of Miltons' box and approach the future as though we were building a whole new nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 08:28:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Complex Systems was-Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <237500.11788.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yahuda,   Complex systems and the study and applications of studied rationales to existing models is very complicated ;>}. My daughters' studies at Berkeley are coined "Society and the Environment" --- impossible to even wrap your mind around the internetworking and spiderweb like complexities of melding the two concepts into a working synergism that benefits both. (that is if you leave society as human and environment as the natural -- go further and you damn near have to rectify Genesis with the ultimate Bang).   On sunday I visited Alcala the first Mission of the Internet of Names and Addresses of Alta California. I stood on "The Playa Trail" the claimed 1st commercial trail/internet system in the US. I hiked later the Rose Canyon Fault - a cornerstone of the geographic fault lines and internet of California de Tierra. This fault line is covered by the Interconnected drainage system of the Tecolote, Bear and Rose canyon basin area. On top lies the Internet of the Santa Fe Railroad and within the epitierra lies the runoff sewage system of the greater San Diego area. Of course on all sides is the Internet of the massive So. Cal. interconnected freeway system.   We have been involved in interconnectivity internets since long before the Phoenicians.  Why are we so shocked at the complexity?  Why do we act like we have been goosed by a brand new idea?  Pure folly and purely erected by existing enterprises to slow it down because they cannot keep up. --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:31 PM karl scribe > As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. - And this statement gives rise to: Why diversity is important. (The possibility of something being one way or another way) That question falls into the field of 'Complexity Science' What Makes a System Complex? What defines a system as complex, as opposed to being merely “complicated”? The answer lies in the presence of four factors: * A population of diverse agents, all of which are * Connected, with behaviors and actions that are * Interdependent, and that exhibit * Adaptation. Understanding complex systems is important for several reasons: * They’re often unpredictable. * They sometimes produce events with global ramifications. * They’re remarkably robust and can withstand substantial trauma and variation. The internet is in a state of 'Emergance'(as defined in Complexity Science), the spontaneous creation of order and functionality from the bottom up. Icann has not grasped that concept, nor do I belive it to grasped that concept. Jon Postel's premis has been exploited by commercial economics, because of the 'Mentality' of those in Icann. Its not just the Greed, the mentally-invisioned amount$ which can be Capitolized via channels provided by Icann, it is also the created perception of Power. My appologies Milton, but maybe if your publisher would have named your book diffrently than 'Ruling the Root', 'the mentality' of Internet success would be different. (I'm not blaming, I'm just saying). So if your intrested in learning about Complexity Science, here a link to a download (which I would not normally provide), but I think it would help some of you to open your eyes. http://www.tactools.org/ttc-video-undestanding-complexity.html -- Ginger and Ian want to get some work done, my suggestions were only to help them accomplish that objective. Let's see what they have to say. If you don't come to the Mountain, the Mountains is gonna come to you. Kind regards____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 10:58:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A81482E.60105@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <454454.39009.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Carlos,   This is so clearly stating that you will not talk to some one who is not worthy of your interest. This is so clearly eltism. What must a man do to be worthy of a voice??  Who would you deem worthy of a voice in GOVERNANCE?   Does this sound familiar?;  Government, by the people, for the people of the people.  But who appointed you?  No one. You are so out of touch with the people you would govern that you are not worthy.  I have never seen a post from you or your ilk seeking a representative form of Governance. You always seek money and power from the top down to the exclusion of the user, that you promote excluding from this United Nations sponsored list. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: But we should really think of ways to use Internet tools so we can express our views knowing, at a minimum, whom we are debating with. frt rgds So you can judge based upon the region, color of their skin, race or class, rather than integrity of their words?  "I have a dream!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 12:48:12 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:48:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Miltons' Matrix is Wrong In-Reply-To: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050908110948w7ad84ad7o852764e1d5cf2142@mail.gmail.com> Dear Eric (and greetings group): We have not corresponded before but I hope you will welcome same. I invite you to consider joining the *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. if you have interest because your posts seem a good match. Sorry not to go into detail here, very interesting reading. Best wishes, LDMF., On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I thank Milton for his contributions and respect is intellect. I read his > posts and marketed "blogging". I found his logic quite persuasive. But then > I saw the problem. The problem with the whole JPA mix. The problem is the > exact opposite of the engineering conundrum of not settling on common > language. The problem is the (way overused) inability to think outside the > goldfish bowl. The problem is -- "being invested" in the status quo. > > The ICANN model is not. It is by know means what Miltons' students would > come up with if assigned the task of building a model for Internet > Governance. It is like a bad patchwork of self interest and preservation. > To even use the same language to discuss ICANN and the way it should be is > counterproductive and misleading. > > We should be using words that sound like our respective countries' > declaration of independence and bills of rights. We should be using terms > that describe interconnectivity and progress and representation. We should > be using concepts like dispute resolution and bodies of standards and norms > and goals and aspirations not restrictions on use and innovation. > > Governance must be for the governed not for those who would govern. Monies > and energies and jurisdictions and corporate structures should be > implemented and spent for the purpose of openness and transparency not > preservation of the structures. If we must tear down to build then so be > it. But we cannot just do a geographic and move existing errors or add on to > an existing weak foundation. We must break out of Miltons' box and approach > the future as though we were building a whole new > 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 > -- LDMF. 914 769 3652 Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 11 17:18:30 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> Totally agree with Carlton and sharing the experience is a favor we do to others without the same opportunity to know the sides of the internet reality. Best to all Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.Brazil Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 6:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Charity Gamboa Cc: Eric Dierker; Roxana Goldstein; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad, My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction. You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim. * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker > wrote: > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my work > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 02:23:24 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:23:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <13350240.1250014949331.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <13350240.1250014949331.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jeffrey Elitist? I am beginning to wonder about your understanding of English. I have no idea as to how you got to elitist. Then again, your one-sentence reply below contains 5 language errors. Then again, perhaps it is also elitist to point that out. Do forgive me, English is only my third language. And yes, you do remember me - like other serious people on this list (and other lists), I contributed to exposing you and the fake organisations of which you are always the dream cloud president/ chairman/ or some or other pretentious title you accord yourself in representing the millions of members/ followers that populate your twisted imagination. As for being hateful, boy, how is that for the pot calling the kettle black! Everybody has resorted to the elitist-sensible practice of filtering you! A damn shame too, for they are losing so much! Rui 2009/8/11 Jeffrey A. Williams > Rui and all, > > > > How unplesent of you... how elitist. And what a shame. but than again > I remember you form some time > > back, and your still the hateful person you were than. Well I guess some > things never change... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 11, 2009 2:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls > > Milton > > That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the > 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment > on the list! > > Rui > > 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > >> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because >> she is a co-coordinator of the list. >> >> >> >> I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my >> email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list >> for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or >> irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed >> up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 02:48:38 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:48:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> Message-ID: Dear Vanda I sincerely hope that I misunderstood what you said with "sharing the experience is a favo[u]r we do to others". We are all here to share and help and create a better environment for all. I fail to see who is doing whom a favour - unless you were talking in your former capacity as a senior on the ICANN board. Perhaps you might want to make use of the opportunity to ensure that what you said is what you meant. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/11 Vanda Scartezini > Totally agree with Carlton and sharing the experience is a favor we do to > others without the same opportunity to know the sides of the internet > reality. > > Best to all > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > *POLO Consultores Associados* > > *& IT Trend* > > *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.Brazil* > > *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** > > > > *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels > *Sent:* Friday, August 07, 2009 6:47 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Charity Gamboa > *Cc:* Eric Dierker; Roxana Goldstein; Fouad Bajwa > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > & > > > > Dear Charity: > I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education > initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical > resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be > shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of > our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our > perspectives. > > Kind regards, > Carlton > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa > wrote: > > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker > wrote: > > Roxana and Fouad, > > > > My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class > geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than > differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to > elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. > > It was during the time when the last international governance elections > were held in ICANN. > > We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not > with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common > interaction. > > > > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > > > > Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. > Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro > democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to > Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. > > Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and > acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are > very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and > McTim. > > > > > > * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a > grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. > Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by > people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for > us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. > > --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein * wrote: > > > From: Roxana Goldstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" > Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM > > Hi Eric, Fouad and all, > > I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from > the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the > underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are > "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the > contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in > english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate > to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. > The scenario is different in underdev countries. > > I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table > a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction > and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites > instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, > perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low > participation of underdev people. > > Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I > was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, > even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed > contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to > make something different than what has been done before. > > Best regards, > Roxana > > 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > > > > Hi Eric, > > True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. > If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will > we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue > to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin > pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your > comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a > development agenda with respect to IG. > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric > Dierker> > wrote: > > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my > work > > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. > What > > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective > > on the net. > > > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the > > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the > > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > > wrote: > > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > > Development Agenda from Civil Society > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > > the developed world perspective. > > > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 09:26:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:56:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Reminder of Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Message-ID: <4A82C307.3050509@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 10:07:25 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:37:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Message-ID: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 12 10:16:34 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:16:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to > later be voted upon and approved by the list? > > Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related > topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance > list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members > would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. > > Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if > it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be > one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require > approval, vote or consensus. > > After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to > the charter. > > Is this practical, appropriate, legal? > > Any thoughts? > > I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we > should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not > think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would > be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I > thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) > > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Aug 12 11:05:24 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:05:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> I agree with Avri's suggestion - working group lists can take a lot of the back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused discussion on getting something done. But that won't do anything about troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll issues. Jacqueline A. Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com http://www.jacquelinemorris.com http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM To: Governance/IGC List Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to > later be voted upon and approved by the list? > > Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related > topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance > list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members > would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. > > Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if > it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be > one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require > approval, vote or consensus. > > After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to > the charter. > > Is this practical, appropriate, legal? > > Any thoughts? > > I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we > should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not > think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would > be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I > thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) > > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Wed Aug 12 11:11:47 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:11:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908120811n6fa7edf8o520536e0e9fd8115@mail.gmail.com> I support Avri's idea. Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in any full and frank discussion. Carlton Samuels On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially > given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list > and not 'members'. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency > (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and > because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one > can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time > to vote on something (or sooner if wished). > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side > lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on > x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open > archives. > > a. > > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to later >> be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related topics". >> This would be an open list. We would change the governance list from an open >> list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to be approved >> by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is >> not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the >> duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or >> consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should take >> pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a proper >> procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and then >> resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make it >> stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 11:26:12 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:56:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Explanation and apology In-Reply-To: <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> Message-ID: <4A82DF14.6060004@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 11:51:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:21:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> Hi All The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities, that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present. It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem to be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about it, like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns. We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we are able to properly do things that we are mandated to do. I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects (1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on IG issues, chiefly global IG issues (2) to undertake public interest advocacy in global IG spaces The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones which are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a reasonable discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly requires more specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities. No one is advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we indeed have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes in the past. In this sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we need to keep evolving on the same unique path. I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something like IGC-mmbers at lists.cpsr.org, plus another general IGC discussion list which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list - in any case the overall discussion towards seeking consensus should take place on the general list. However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I are taking about here). In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it. In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate responsibility. What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute 'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently, motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global crisis. parminder Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. > Especially given the number of well respected people who are > participants on the list and not 'members'. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from > transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited > from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of > outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and > then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner > if wished). > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller > side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a > statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, > but with open archives. > > a. > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >> vote or consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >> would be able to make it stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Aug 12 12:42:05 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:12:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A82F0DD.5010808@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. > Especially given the number of well respected people who are > participants on the list and not 'members'. Avri As per what I suggest no fundamental change takes place. The well respected people you speak of can continue to be participants, and they have as much right in all discussions as anyone else. It is their choice if they want to also be members to take part in IGC decisions, those of which just must be taken. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from > transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited > from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of > outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and > then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner > if wished). Nothing is done to outreach either. The list remains as open for anyone to subscribe. Membership also remains open if one wants to be a member and subscribes to the charter, which is the condition for membership. An excessive and unthinking accent on formal openness/ participation can come at the expense of real or substantive openness/ participation, and the IGC is a good instance of it. An IGC made ineffective because we dont take the minimum necessary decisions/ measures drives people away, and also otherwise greatly reduces effectiveness of IGC as a conduit of participation of voices that are otherwise poorly represented in global IG forums. > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller > side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a > statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, > but with open archives. Should be in any case useful. But there are not enough active IGC members willing to get into such huddles. Finally, everything depends on the quality of discussions on the IGC general list, and the substantive impact and, consequent, recognition/ status IGC can earn. I think we can all agree that the current set of events that this thread has developed in response to does not promise to take us in that direction. Therefore small topical lists does nothing to address the issue we are facing, though I am greatly for them. Parminder > > a. > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >> vote or consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >> would be able to make it stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 12 14:34:33 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908120811n6fa7edf8o520536e0e9fd8115@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <440924.8051.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I hope no one views these positions as "against anyone".  They are clearly in support of the Idea, and all Ideas need support. They are not in support of a personality they are in support of the notion of finding solutions.    Regardless of my position on segregation and divisions and borders and boundaries I am totally in support of open dialogs to make all feel a "part of" our grand designs.  Personally I really like people who try to fix things instead of walking away or throwing away.   Also I like Gingers' idea of giving some alternatives a shot.  See if they work. We can at least learn if they turn into mistakes.   And lastly I think it is important to provide for safe lists for the socially handicapped to participate in.  It is not fair for those of us who can withstand "slings and arrows" to expect all with worthy intellects to be so capable.  Our folks who cannot handle the constant exposure to the infectious demands of the users should be allowed some prophylactic antibiotics to prevent serious social injury. --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Carlton Samuels wrote: From: Carlton Samuels Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:11 PM I support Avri's idea. Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in any full and frank discussion. Carlton Samuels On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.  Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to later be voted upon and approved by the list? Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or consensus. After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the charter. Is this practical, appropriate, legal? Any thoughts? I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) gp ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 16:16:57 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:16:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support In-Reply-To: <9271778.1250106710004.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9271778.1250106710004.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050908121316n294934eco9244383a0b9ac3f5@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for the inclusion. There is much that is interesting and relevant in the current conversations, and something for everyone, as it seems there should be by the very nature of the 'universe of discourse.' Best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Eric and all, > > > > I agree with Eric and especially Carltons remarks below. Unfortunately I > am censored on the governance > > list for reasons that I do not know, nor can any rational person support. > > > > Selective censorship benifits no one and damages to one degree or another > all. Openess and transparency > > benifits everyone, and anyone. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dierker > Sent: Aug 12, 2009 1:34 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlton Samuels , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support > > I hope no one views these positions as "against anyone". They are > clearly in support of the Idea, and all Ideas need support. They are not in > support of a personality they are in support of the notion of finding > solutions. > > Regardless of my position on segregation and divisions and borders and > boundaries I am totally in support of open dialogs to make all feel a "part > of" our grand designs. Personally I really like people who try to fix > things instead of walking away or throwing away. > > Also I like Gingers' idea of giving some alternatives a shot. See if they > work. We can at least learn if they turn into mistakes. > > And lastly I think it is important to provide for safe lists for the > socially handicapped to participate in. It is not fair for those of us who > can withstand "slings and arrows" to expect all with worthy intellects to be > so capable. Our folks who cannot handle the constant exposure to the > infectious demands of the users should be allowed some prophylactic > antibiotics to prevent serious social injury. > > --- On *Wed, 8/12/09, Carlton Samuels *wrote: > > > From: Carlton Samuels > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:11 PM > > I support Avri's idea. > > Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am > troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than > collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. > > Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of > academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in > any full and frank discussion. > > Carlton Samuels > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially >> given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list >> and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency >> (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and >> because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one >> can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time >> to vote on something (or sooner if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side >> lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on >> x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open >> archives. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance list >>> from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to >>> be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is >>> not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the >>> duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or >>> consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >>> charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >>> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a >>> proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and >>> then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make >>> it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 18:19:59 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:19:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Explanation and apology In-Reply-To: <4A82DF14.6060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good to see the range of views being put forward, and some open discussion on this, so Ginger it wasn¹t so bad a mistake to make after all! This list periodically has disruptive influences (who was the person who during WSIS preparations kept posting long diatribes on the inner workings of UNIX?) Others I could name meant well but were just highly unusual to the point where they input could be considered disruptive. We seem to have quite different opinions here on the option of a closed list ­ some strongly for, some strongly against. I have a personal preference for an open list, but I do have a higher tolerance for noise on lists than some. Perhaps if English wasn¹t my first language I would feel different however. But if there is a strong feeling either way I here I am happy to go with the general direction! Ian On 13/08/09 1:26 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi everyone, > First an explanation and apology. My last email post was meant for Ian Peter > (offlist) as a discussion between co-coordinators, not for the list. > Unfortunately, I am multi-tasking from an excellent IGF preparatory meeting > in Rio, and this error was a result. > > From a viewpoint of transparency, it is not terrible--I would not however, > treat this subject in this manner on the list, as I did permit myself more > latitude in a private email. I have already apologized to Alejandro Pisanty > for making public a private conversation. > > I am glad to see nonetheless that responses have been productive and coherent. > Perhaps we can make positive use of this error to find alternatives to improve > the efficiency of the list. I do emphasize that the objective is not > censorship, but working together to make the list work better, and in > particular, to stop people from unsubscribing due to distracting posts. > > My personal opinion is still that the most obvious solution is the use of > filters and message rules in our email applications to control unwanted > emails. However, the number of sign-offs, and the distraction from substantial > discussion concerns me. Let us please discuss Avri's suggestion and any others > that come up. Please opine. > > Thanks. Best, > Ginger > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> >> I agree with Avri's suggestion - working group lists can take a lot of the >> back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused >> discussion on getting something done. But that won't do anything about >> troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness >> and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others >> find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll >> issues. >> >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> jam at jacquelinemorris.com >> http://www.jacquelinemorris.com >> http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM >> To: Governance/IGC List >> Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. >> Especially given the number of well respected people who are >> participants on the list and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from >> transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited >> from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of >> outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and >> then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner >> if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller >> side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a >> statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, >> but with open archives. >> >> a. >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >>> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >>> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >>> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be >>> one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require >>> approval, vote or consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to >>> the charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we >>> should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not >>> think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would >>> be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I >>> thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Aug 12 23:33:37 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal Message-ID: Ginger & Ian, I have one more proposal/suggestion to add; Can we agree that from: After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List can be 'Open Topic' (Happy Hour: Fri-Sun), And that Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List in 'Work Group' session. (no off topic interferance) I have been on other list wherein this is the "Gentleman's Agreement." - If any of you felt that I have been a troll at sometime, please tell me so and I'll excuse myself from this list. I try to make my comments on weekends only, However there are times that I get engaged in the heat of the context, and feel the need to reply, before the inspirations is lost. I must admit, that as I'm getting old, I am loosing some of my motor skills to cancer, but try to stay cohesive and provide what relative support I can. A Friday/Sunday 'Happy Hour' conversation on IG works great for me. - I'm also worried about Young-People feeling free to make 'Proposals", First off, I feel that there are not enough people presently on this list making PROPOSALS, and even less, Young People speaking up with their proposals. This deeply troubles me because; 1. Its their net environment were building, 2. It seem to be prevalent in most of the American youths I've seen, that is, that passive behavior. Hearing their "Proposals" is important, so we understand, what is important too them. 'Proposals' are what we need, because there are plenty comments. - It's Wednesday evening her in California, I've got grapes to prune tomarrow morning, It's going to be a great year for good Wine. I'll see you all at IG Happy Hour. Thnx (for putting up with me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 13 14:29:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <893163.3173.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yehuda,   I really like this idea. Open houses. Coffee Clashes(sp) Break into small groups with buddies.   I only caution that the term "on topic" precludes folks like me from bringing humanism into intellectual debates that effect priorities regarding things like access to health information, education, A2K, and users rights in IP restrictions.   If "stick to what I say" is the topic that we are on  -- Well in that case your criteria and Idea sucks. (he who defines the issue wins the debate)   ps. Watch those Berkely kids kick some IP ass!! --- On Thu, 8/13/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 3:33 AM Ginger & Ian, I have one more proposal/suggestion to add; Can we agree that from: After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List can be 'Open Topic' (Happy Hour: Fri-Sun), And that Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List in 'Work Group' session. (no off topic interferance) I have been on other list wherein this is the "Gentleman's Agreement." - If any of you felt that I have been a troll at sometime, please tell me so and I'll excuse myself from this list. I try to make my comments on weekends only, However there are times that I get engaged in the heat of the context, and feel the need to reply, before the inspirations is lost. I must admit, that as I'm getting old, I am loosing some of my motor skills to cancer, but try to stay cohesive and provide what relative support I can. A Friday/Sunday 'Happy Hour' conversation on IG works great for me. - I'm also worried about Young-People feeling free to make 'Proposals", First off, I feel that there are not enough people presently on this list making PROPOSALS, and even less, Young People speaking up with their proposals. This deeply troubles me because; 1. Its their net environment were building, 2. It seem to be prevalent in most of the American youths I've seen, that is, that passive behavior. Hearing their "Proposals" is important, so we understand, what is important too them. 'Proposals' are what we need, because there are plenty comments. - It's Wednesday evening her in California, I've got grapes to prune tomarrow morning, It's going to be a great year for good Wine. I'll see you all at IG Happy Hour. Thnx (for putting up with me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Aug 13 16:39:56 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: 893163.3173.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Message-ID: Eric, Re.: Eric Schribe.: >I only caution that the term "on topic" precludes folks like me ... I think you may have miss-read the thread. it read 'Open Topic' not "on topic", of which would include Folks like you. To recap the gist of the concept; Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List is in 'Work Group' Session (no interferance with Work Group matters ). After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List is 'Open Topic' (Fri-Sun casual conversation). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 04:46:44 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:46:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities, > that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision > making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present. > > It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction > whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem to > be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about it, > like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns. > > We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers > group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we > are able to properly do things that we are mandated to do. > > I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects > > (1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on IG > issues, chiefly global IG issues > > (2) to undertake public interest advocacy in global IG spaces > > The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational > requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least > encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones which > are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a reasonable > discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly requires more > specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities. No one is > advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we indeed > have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes in the past. In this > sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we need to > keep evolving on the same unique path. > > I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something like > IGC-mmbers at lists.cpsr.org, plus another general IGC discussion list > which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All > discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at > developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list > - in any case the overall discussion towards seeking consensus should > take place on the general list. > > However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should > move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to > decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can > be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I are > taking about here). > > In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a > substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming > difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC > members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it. > In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and > unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate responsibility. > > What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute > 'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world > today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently, > motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions > are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential > moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved > in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the > process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global crisis. > > parminder > > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. >> Especially given the number of well respected people who are >> participants on the list and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from >> transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited >> from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of >> outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and >> then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner >> if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller >> side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a >> statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, >> but with open archives. >> >> a. >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >>> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >>> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >>> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >>> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >>> vote or consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >>> charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >>> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >>> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >>> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >>> would be able to make it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 05:48:32 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:48:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cis-india.org Fri Aug 14 08:06:45 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:36:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Message-ID: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:15:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Great debates Message-ID: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> May I please be directed to a place where I could view and review the great focused and topic specific debates generated and concluded here on this list?   Please do not send me to a thread that shows the "paperwork" generated that justifies this list.  I am quite familiar with the submission papers justifying this lists' mandates. What I am looking for is a thread that really dealt with a governance issue in a productive and focused way.   I hope that by looking at that piece of history and then seeing what is happening for the last months I can understand this talk of the list being ruined by participation.  My belief at this moment is that the "mass unsubscribing" is simply a tool being used by those to get what they want.  And that would be to discredit this list because it is not following the quiters desired results. I believe there is some history to Milton and Fausset doing this in ICANN. I hope I am wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 08:17:24 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:17:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congress & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20090814121740.3C47D67887@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 05:21 10/08/2009, Karl Auerbach wrote: >When I read ICANN's plan for splattering itself it was pretty clear >that the intent was to abandon most ties with the US except as >necessary to maintain existing contracts. It was a bizarre system >of corporations in various places with unique laws in which it >seemed that the board of ICANN-US would also occupy seats on each >ICANN-elsewhere. And registrars and registries would make contracts >with the nearby ICANN-somewhere under the laws of that >-somewhere. It would be a mess of divine proportions that would >totally frustrate even the most vacuous Enron-like conception of >accountability. Karl, I must say I dropped interest in ICANN "Internet Governance" details for a while due to more important matters on the "Internet Adminance" (administrative and technical governance) user's side. You seem to refer to a published ICANN's plan? I feel I missed that plan - or are you referring to the many verbose and diffuse documents they publish to make believe they are of any real use in being a real pain? IMHO ICANN only exists due to the JPA. Because, through the JPA the current Internet presentation default it "manages" (I used "presentation" in the architectural presentation layer meaning) is the one supported by the USG (cybersquatting act), NTIA (e-commerce) and ISOC. This is based on the constrained stability (moreover the misunderstood DNSSEC threat is used) of the single authoritative root. China, Russia, India, Europe accept, restraining their digital sovereignty in exchange for this US (not ICANN, nor IETF) protected stability. So, do their users. So do ITU, ISO, UNESCO, etc. Should ICANN quit the USG digital umbrella, it would enter competition. The first Internet area to react would probably be the USA, creating their own ICANN replacement to manage the US Internet presentation based upon the "US" DNS Class including all the currently existing "IN" class TLDs and ignoring the new TLDs sold on the ICANN root. It would be foolishly immature not to do it. The same for others areas and groups of users, starting with the TLDA class. What will ICANN do once in Geneva in front of 65.000 different legitimate DNS and millions of user domain name "ibm.com" stably resolving millions different IP addresses (This is the _real_ Internet we deal with under finishing Microsoft Windows protection)? Have a round the corner lunch with WIPO people? This is why at france at large and the iucg at ietf.org, as several other do, we openly work on the natural architectural reading of the existing Internet (Interplus) to transparently support this natural evolution of the usage of the _existing_ Internet, DNS, browsers, email agents, etc., and to extend the Internet itself to active content (what Web.2.0 tries to implement at the application level). Lawyers and academics missed the very matter at hand: what the real Internet rustic technology permits but does not manage. Security, addresses, multilingualism, routing, privacy, control, etc. are not its only big lacks. The world has agreed a few years ago now how to tackle these problems and their emerging saliencies and further adminance : through enhanced cooperations. ICANN has paid a lot to delay this. It may be very happy in a few months from now to join such cooperations over the DNS, addressing, IP, multilingualisation, etc. "Yet it turns!". 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:21:43 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <743199.14005.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Generally speaking,   If this input is what you want  --  you provide easy access links to the forum in which the comments are welcome.  I am sure you did not intend this but your post without connections rings a little hollow and without sincerity.   If your response to this is -- "everyone knows" or "find it yourself" well then the intentions are clear and the desired inclusion is obvious.   This agenda setting is much like the list control debates here.  Watch any legislative body for a while and you will see  -  he who controls the agenda gets what he wants. --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 12:06 PM Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission)  For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.  I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:23:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This exists here. The very normal 5 post limit.  Note, no one has broken it.  Kind of shows that the complaint is not that legitimate. --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 9:48 AM Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing.   Best regards, Rui   2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette   Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Fri Aug 14 09:41:11 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:41:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media Companies, Privacy Terms Missing In-Reply-To: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media Companies, Privacy Terms Missing In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act Request, the Government Services Administration released several contracts between the federal government and web 2.0 companies, including agreements with Blip.tv, Blist, Google (YouTube), Yahoo (Flickr), and MySpace. EPIC also obtained amendments to agreements with Facebook, Slideshare.net, Vimeo.com, and AddThis.com. The contracts do not address the privacy obligations of social media companies. The GSA letter to EPIC explained that “no specific Web 2.0 guidance currently exists,” but provided EPIC with Training Slides that raise privacy issues. The GSA Agreement with Google actually states that, “to the extent any rules or guidelines exist prohibiting the use of persistent cookies in connection with Provider Content applies to Google, Provider expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google.” Some of the agreements also permit companies to track users of government web sites for advertising purposes. For more information see EPIC Social Network Privacy, EPIC Facebook, and EPIC Cloud Computing. http://epic.org/2009/08/epic-forces-disclosure-of-gove.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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 14 10:49:46 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:49:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn't mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit - say, 5 per day - would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. ________________________________ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 10:53:46 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:23:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello I agree with Ginger on some of her points ( so disagree with Avri on some of her points ) Did Ginger imply moderated and NOT a closed list with inaccessible archives? I think what Ginger suggested is a moderated list, the list happens to be a moderated list, but set to allow messages to appear instantly as posted. This is a serious list, considered to have originated from the WSIS caucus, and it is necessary to ensure that this remains a serious list. Managing this as a list open for subscription by anyone, without any idea of who is subscribing or any idea of the subscriber's background dilutes the significance of this list. Setting the list to moderated mode does not mean that every message by every member needs to be moderated. The moderators can exercise judgement and allow "override moderation" privileges to most members to allow them to post without moderation. The most recent members or even older members if they happen to fit into the description of a troll or distractor could be set to message moderation. A second list is also a good idea, but this idea could be combined with Avri's suggestion of a working group model for very important, select topic areas or tasks, but we need to be cautious and avoid the temptation to create too many working groups. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This exists here. The very normal 5 post limit. Note, no one has broken > it. Kind of shows that the complaint is not that legitimate. > > --- On *Fri, 8/14/09, Rui Correia * wrote: > > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 9:48 AM > > > Dear All > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > >> Hi all, >> >> I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with >> the issue of decision making capacity. >> >> >> The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates >> contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their >> membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific >> lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant >> within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or >> moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. >> >> The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not >> sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters >> don't prevent ad hominem attacks. >> >> After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 >> days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is >> so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. >> >> My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few >> options for action. >> One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion >> elsewhere. >> Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on >> abuse. >> >> The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to >> take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: >> >> "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those >> relating to: >> *No personal insults >> *No spam" >> >> The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of >> abuse and appropriate means of action against it. >> >> >> There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out >> coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present >> impasse and help restoring this discussion space. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Aug 14 12:09:25 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:09:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Every so often I'll see someone new to the list respond to a posting by a fellow I blocked several years ago - I can't recall his name for the moment - and fell as if I should advise them as to the negative impact his full participation would have on the list. But one does not want to discourage participation by newbies and I just ignore. People seem to catch on fairly quickly. (Just recalled his name and remember a fellow I respect in the industry asking me if I read his posts. I said no, used to, but now I block him. He said he is amused and gains some benefit from reading his posts. So Jeffrey, keep up the effort, some people enjoy your posts.) But for me he doesn't exist. Milton blocked him. I block him. And others on the list probably block him. He just doesn't exist as a problem for me. (As I might not exist to others on this list.) If anyone is unfamiliar with how to block someone, email me privately. Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. One or two others here are near extinction, as is the "fix" conversation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 14 14:20:53 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:20:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <61a136f40908141120j1b51dcfs289662f4fceef63c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja: I will offer an opinion that might not be popular but the logic of which I'm yet to see successfully contradicted. It concerns the use of the word "rights" in the context of a service, which is the practical meaning of the word "internet" to ordinary people. I think we can find common cause with respect to [a set of] Internet principles. But when the term "rights" is juxtaposed and invoked, it takes on an aura of justiciability. By extension, a claim for infringement of or disenfranchisement from that right would attract a motion for adjudication; some agent/agency must enforce these rights. The difficulty of course is the need to define the parties and their connected responsibilitites, in context. Typically, the tort law comes into play here. But this is not the sense you get when we talk of Internet rights. A useful corollary is the "right" to education that is so much a part of the development agenda. And, unfortunately, therein lies the rub. Carlton Samuels On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 14 19:14:24 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Something to think about-- Message-ID: <162386.53090.qm@web45201.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> --- هميشه رفتن رسيدن نيست، اما براي رسيدن چاره اي جز رفتن نيست.       در بن بست هميشه راه آسمان باز است، پرواز را بايد آموخت!     هر چه نور بيش تر ، سايه ها عميق تر! "گوته"       اگر مي خواهي پس از مرگ فراموش نشوي يا چيزي بنويس که قابل خواندن باشه يا کاري کن که قابل نوشتن باشه! "بنيامين فرانکلين"           عشق مانند ساعت شني مي ماند قلب را پرمي کند، مغز را خالي.           تعلل درد زمان است. از ادوارد يانگاميل   و زندگی مثل «دوچرخه‌سواری» می‌مونه. واسه‌ی حفظ تعادلت همیشه باید در حرکت باشی.   آلبرت انیشتین       Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.           __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4110 (20090528) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4110 (20090528) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 19:45:19 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:15:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 20:41:14 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:41:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141741p51a25b10j75b385eab7035feb@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits > because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the > quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., > Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. > if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing > 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – say, 5 > per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of > time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. > More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > Dear All > > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 20:59:57 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:59:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141759h5cc6940cx7f16cca97386e3e6@mail.gmail.com> see reply below - interspersed with laughter. On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Every so often I'll see someone new to the list respond to a posting by a > fellow I blocked several years ago - I can't recall his name for the moment > - and fell as if I should advise them as to the negative impact his full > participation would have on the list. > > But one does not want to discourage participation by newbies and I just > ignore. People seem to catch on fairly quickly. (Just recalled his name and > remember a fellow I respect in the industry asking me if I read his posts. I > said no, used to, but now I block him. He said he is amused and gains some > benefit from reading his posts. So Jeffrey, keep up the effort, some people > enjoy your posts.) > I agree. You can learn a lot from reading the Jeffrey posts - I certainly am a fan. But like all information on the Internet - one should do their research. One thing I do know about Jeffery is that he is good at stock market predictions vis a vis the subjects he follows. I tracked some of them.Very profitable. My recommendation to people is to never filter Jeffery out. In fact - create a filter and read him at your leisure. Jeffery should be required reading. > > But for me he doesn't exist. > But he does exist. You should call him and let him know just how many people enjoy Jeffery's posts. If you need his number - I'll provide it. Jeffery is an institution in and of himself. Of course he would be popular. You know. You should to me like your more jealous or even envious of Jeff's fame. > Milton blocked him. I block him. And others on the list probably block him. > He just doesn't exist as a problem for me. (As I might not exist to others > on this list.) > Your missing a lot. Did you hear the one about the ICANN employee affiliated with the NAZIs that Jeffery uncovered. I had to moderate an ICANN complaint atthe GA with Garside and Dierker. ICANN with Garside tried to have him banned from the GA. But our investigation of the ICANN complaint confirmed that the ICANN employee did in fact work for a former NAZI prior to joining ICANN. The complaint was dismissed by us as frivolous and vexatious since the material facts of the allegations by Jeffery were true. Jeff is famous. Jeff is a Star. Jeff is our legacy. A constant reminder to one and all. If anyone is unfamiliar with how to block someone, email me privately. > Great stuff. Folks - take advantage of this if you have too. Free technical support. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > P.S. One or two others here are near extinction, as is the "fix" > conversation. > Yes - I agree - the censorship trolls are at it again and Milton is busy feeding them. Not good. I'm a strong supporter in your self censorship. cheers and thanks for offering technical support. You should ask them for a tax receipt. do you know how many people here can benefit from this service. cheers joe baptista > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 21:18:04 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:18:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Great debates In-Reply-To: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141818y204478d4l1885f2e52bb3d27b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > > I hope that by looking at that piece of history and then seeing what is > happening for the last months I can understand this talk of the list being > ruined by participation. > I'm with Thomas Lowenhaupt on this one. Self censorship is the only way this list is going to survive. The filter is a powerful tool. Not always accurate - but it works. Thomas Lowenhaupt has offered his services to provide the list members with technical support on installing filters. My belief at this moment is that the "mass unsubscribing" is simply a tool > being used by those to get what they want. And that would be to discredit > this list because it is not following the quiters desired results. I believe > there is some history to Milton and Fausset doing this in ICANN. I hope I am > wrong. > I agree. It's an old trick taught years ago to members of the BWG (Boston Working Group). It's just elitist intellectual intimidation tactics learned from the Internet pros. But in the end Milton is no Chomsky. Thats what he has done to himself by participating in this libelous and slanderous censorship troll feeding episode. This list is full of censorship trolls and Milton should know better then to feed the trolls. anyway - cheers joe baptista Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 22:53:27 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:53:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <45ed74050908141953m747942b8hfca9d56c520afb3e@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja and Colleagues: Thank you for spot-lighting this seminal area; some time ago we were planning to discuss Internet or Cyberspace *rights and responsibilities*, per se, and will welcome rejoining you / working groups / and all here on the universal yet here specialized topic. . P.S. In various forms of connection to such matters I am updating live vita just now, and working draft appears below, to establish/reestablish substantive connections including of course with you - can be skipped if you wish to end reading here. :) Linda. LDMF. Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, sending best wishes and welcoming you to *Respectful Interfaces*.. http://tinyurl.com/dr-misek-falkoff-081409 *Evolving Live Vita:* 2009 NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) http://tiny.cc/081409RespectfulInterfaces Officer or Member: National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). http://www.youtube.com/user/RESPITES Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. (in preparation). Topical Searches: For auto-update on Dr. Misek-Falkoff's legal achievements seeking *respectful interfaces* at dangerous railroad crossings (communication, coordination, collaboration of rr signals and motorists) click here. (in preparation). For judicial record on legal achievements regarding CyberLibel and related forms of CyberIssues click here. (in preparation). For documentation on inventions and discoveries ARPANnet forward click here (in preparation). On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 03:20:50 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:50:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 04:38:30 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:38:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> Hi Anja and rest of the members, Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of the day. The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting activities. I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be intervening on this issue with more strength. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 05:16:15 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:46:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear Fouad, As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the Open Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I understand why Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that we, as civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided. This seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the Draft Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed by not raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns. One point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to trash such issues out. Anja On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of > the day. > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting > activities. > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > > provide the space to do so. > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > > discussions. > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > Hi Anja, > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > > you send it in? > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 05:57:55 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, Aug 15 deadline Message-ID: <889491.39953.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jeff,    Need I remind readers, of what are my core beliefs; Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.   Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. I note this coming up again but it is being ignored in large part.  Again the issues center around fitting it in to someones agenda or timetable or being "on topic".  To me this is the topic of governance.  Unless and until we establish basic principals of human rights and dignity in the use of our Internet it will only be a capitalist tool to control and sell to the masses. Governments, IP interests, mega multinational corporations must all be limited by a robust proclamation of our most basic human rights in the area of freedom of speech and dignity.  It is of course a matter of dignified, respectful interface but without a steadfast foundation acknowledging inherent liberties it is by power's grace that we have rights not by rights.   www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Voice of Freedom" , gpaque at gmail.com Cc: mueller at syr.edu Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:15 PM #yiv1456227653 #yiv1987622656 #yiv1516634382 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv1456227653 #yiv1987622656 #yiv1516634382 p{margin:0px;} Eric and all,     Here, here!  Unfortunately Milton will not be pleased, nor shall Ginger.  Of course that's a shame... -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker Sent: Aug 9, 2009 12:10 AM To: Voice of Freedom Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation In that it is not the governance that needs to be protected from the users. In that it is the users that must be protected from overbearing, self appointed, non-representative rulers in governance;   Know all persons by these presence.    1. All internet users regardless of Race, Color, National or Geographic Origins, sex, age, language, Education or lack thereof shall be treated equally.  (we may want to take a page from A2K and add handicapped, a page from our Gay and Lesbian users and add sexual preference, and just to be careful add faith and creed)   2. No organization shall be created that in any way purports to govern the internet that excludes any class or segment of society, including simple users without other stake, from representation therein.   3. No organization shall be formed by any nation in their sole national capacity that purports to govern any other nations useage of the Internet.   4. No commercial or governmental interest shall ever be given priority over the rights of users.   5. No government action shall in any way ever cause there to be an interruption in user access to the Internet.   6. No private or commercial provider shall allow or promote or cause to ocurr any abridgement of the basic human rights of Speech, Faith, Press or due process.   7. No restrictions upon the useage of the internet shall be promulgated by anything less than legitimate duly elected individuals.     Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 06:09:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <820915.24507.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Anja,   Please understand that sometimes in the course of human affairs being polite and pleasant is not respectful at all.  Above all, in our international UN experiences, must remain the respect and dignity of the individual. Note this is not of "an individual".  In order to truly respect the rights of all we must not be obessant to process or to leaders. Indeed due process and legitimate leadership cannot be conceived unless at the hands of a fully empowered netizenry afforded the right to participate in governance.   In war, few cheer for long as the victors' tanks rumble through the streets in victory.  But all mankind cheers forever when we see the ink stained voting fingers raised proud and true in a real victory of our spirit. We are nothing and shall remain nothing in governance until we treat the lowest user with the same human respect as we do the loftiest thinkers. --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 7:20 AM Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 15 06:25:16 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:25:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150325qaa5ec0cu36153e7c5419749d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja, I want to clear that I have not revoked your anticipation to get heard and neither have we as members of Civil Society at any stage prevented such interaction. The emphasis that I made very clear from my message earlier was that lets try to be there, lets try to group up others and for those that are unaware, lets educate them. One feeling that I had during the MAG meetings was that whenever we spoke about the issue of Human Rights or Internet Rights, you could see the glances between the various groups and lobbies and the nods and smirks. Its time to get the real agenda forward and I repeat, please try to be there physically or if Ginger can make it there, she can read out an IGC mutually agreed statement that does hold value, if she can't make it there, may be I will be present and can make the statement from IGC. Try to be vocal and send the message across to as many Civil Society members and groups as possible. The group will definitely have a larger impact and more intervention. You can actually interact with people then. I also discussed this with Sunil Abraham when I met him Geneva this May that CIS should join in the IG debate at any level possible and there should be a great amount of intervention so forth. Sunil networks with very important organizations and Civil Society groups that can join and contribute to the debate meaningfully! On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF > Secretariat.  I am quite aware of what happened during the Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback.  I understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here.  What is the point is that we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided.  This > seems one such occasion to me.  Even if we understand why the Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then > hopefully in the future.  The only agenda that will get harmed by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns.  One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Hi Anja and rest of the members, >> >> Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights >> and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were >> well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open >> Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings >> during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed >> approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during >> the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- >> >> It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two >> recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by >> the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance >> for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable >> and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter >> (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of >> the day. >> >> The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and >> deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically >> focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual >> assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal >> Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private >> Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet >> Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting >> activities. >> >> I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this >> list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically >> participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders >> being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the >> European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in >> Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be >> intervening on this issue with more strength. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> > >> > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and >> > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or >> > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of >> > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches >> > the IGF Secretariat. >> > >> > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC >> > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by >> > various groups and individuals can be found here: >> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > Suggested statement: >> > >> > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that >> > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of >> > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for >> > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the >> > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected >> > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and >> > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS >> > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly >> > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an >> > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is >> > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building >> > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and >> > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF >> > provide the space to do so. >> > >> > IGC Submission - April 2009: >> > >> > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet >> > Governance Caucus. >> > >> > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and >> > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to >> > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and >> > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to >> > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for >> > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >> > >> > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance >> > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding >> > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications >> > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open >> > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> > discussions. >> > >> > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It >> > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> > >> > Hi Anja, >> > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the >> > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >> > >> > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who >> > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before >> > you send it in? >> > >> > Best, >> > Ginger >> > >> > Anja Kovacs wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >> > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >> > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >> > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >> > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >> > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >> > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >> > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >> > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >> > comment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC to >> > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >> > some of the wording of the April submission) >> > >> > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >> > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >> > and Society, Bangalore. >> > >> > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >> > Governance issues. >> > >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > Fellow >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> > www.cis-india.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 >> > >> > >> > >> > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > Fellow >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> > www.cis-india.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 >> > >> > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 15 07:46:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:16:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 15 07:53:23 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:53:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150453qbe9bc3aj6fb03dff9cdde2f2@mail.gmail.com> And yes of course Anja, you have me to for signing! On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 08:17:25 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:17:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with In-Reply-To: <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908150517i3e2d6b8ct6c337c69ee5b6a26@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, dear Katitza, could we have a spanish version of this article? Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/14 > EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media > Companies, Privacy Terms Missing > > In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act Request, the Government > Services Administration released several contracts between the federal > government and web 2.0 companies, including agreements with Blip.tv, > Blist, Google (YouTube), Yahoo (Flickr), and MySpace. EPIC also obtained > amendments to agreements with Facebook, Slideshare.net, Vimeo.com, and > AddThis.com. The contracts do not address the privacy obligations of > social media companies. The GSA letter to EPIC explained that “no specific > Web 2.0 guidance currently exists,” but provided EPIC with Training Slides > that raise privacy issues. The GSA Agreement with Google actually states > that, “to the extent any rules or guidelines exist prohibiting the use of > persistent cookies in connection with Provider Content applies to Google, > Provider expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to > Google.” Some of the agreements also permit companies to track users of > government web sites for advertising purposes. For more information see > EPIC Social Network Privacy, EPIC Facebook, and EPIC Cloud Computing. > > http://epic.org/2009/08/epic-forces-disclosure-of-gove.html > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Sat Aug 15 10:35:02 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:35:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Building in Surveillance Message-ID: <7861e5792e45f4d10d463ffadd867b2d.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> fyi, Building in Surveillance Crypto-Gram Newsletter Bruce Schneier Chief Security Technology Officer, BT China is the world's most successful Internet censor. While the Great Firewall of China isn't perfect, it effectively limits information flowing in and out of the country. But now the Chinese government is taking things one step further. Under a requirement taking effect soon, every computer sold in China will have to contain the Green Dam Youth Escort software package. Ostensibly a pornography filter, it is government spyware that will watch every citizen on the Internet. Green Dam has many uses. It can police a list of forbidden Web sites. It can monitor a user's reading habits. It can even enlist the computer in some massive botnet attack, as part of a hypothetical future cyberwar. China's actions may be extreme, but they're not unique. Democratic governments around the world -- Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom, for example -- are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell. Many are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to keep information on their customers. Just recently, the German government proposed giving itself the power to censor the Internet. The United States is no exception. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to facilitate FBI eavesdropping, and since 2001, the NSA has built substantial eavesdropping systems in the United States. The government has repeatedly proposed Internet data retention laws, allowing surveillance into past activities as well as present. Systems like this invite criminal appropriation and government abuse. New police powers, enacted to fight terrorism, are already used in situations of normal crime. Internet surveillance and control will be no different. Official misuses are bad enough, but the unofficial uses worry me more. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and by the people you don't. China's government designed Green Dam for its own use, but it's been subverted. Why does anyone think that criminals won't be able to use it to steal bank account and credit card information, use it to launch other attacks, or turn it into a massive spam-sending botnet? Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected Internet data or eavesdrop on phone and IM conversations? These risks are not theoretical. After 9/11, the National Security Agency built a surveillance infrastructure to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails within the United States. Although procedural rules stated that only non-Americans and international phone calls were to be listened to, actual practice didn't always match those rules. NSA analysts collected more data than they were authorized to, and used the system to spy on wives, girlfriends, and famous people such as President Clinton. But that's not the most serious misuse of a telecommunications surveillance infrastructure. In Greece, between June 2004 and March 2005, someone wiretapped more than 100 cell phones belonging to members of the Greek government -- the prime minister and the ministers of defense, foreign affairs and justice. Ericsson built this wiretapping capability into Vodafone's products, and enabled it only for governments that requested it. Greece wasn't one of those governments, but someone still unknown -- a rival political party? organized crime? -- figured out how to surreptitiously turn the feature on. Researchers have already found security flaws in Green Dam that would allow hackers to take over the computers. Of course there are additional flaws, and criminals are looking for them. Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many governments want to eliminate. Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries. The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers. It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.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 Sat Aug 15 12:53:38 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:53:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM To: anja at cis-india.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Hi Anja, Thanks for taking this up. Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 wcurrie at apc.org Sat Aug 15 13:34:23 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:34:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Thanks, Anja. Please add my name and APC. Willie Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > *To:* anja at cis-india.org > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know > by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will > make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that > the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that > time by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > Thanks, > Anja > > _Suggested statement:_ > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as > an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic > was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by > a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft > Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles > even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration > of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed > the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, > it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly > building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet > Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of > the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > _IGC Submission - April 2009:_ > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they > relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a > space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 13:39:41 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:39:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <161469B9304A4A1C986FCB95F40861DE@userPC> And add my name as well... M -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:21 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view &catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Aug 15 13:50:37 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:50:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A86F56D.10500@wzb.eu> Dear Anja, please add my name as well. jeanette Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by > the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make > sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the > IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time > by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > Thanks, > Anja > > _Suggested statement:_ > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as > a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors > during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread > support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not > include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the > main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis > Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make > these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning > is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the > meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend > that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > _IGC Submission - April 2009:_ > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate > to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space > for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi Anja, >> I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for >> the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >> >> If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those >> who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names >> before you send it in? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>> some of the wording of the April submission) >>> >>> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>> and Society, Bangalore. >>> >>> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>> Governance issues. >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> Fellow >>> Centre for Internet and Society >>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>> www.cis-india.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 >>> >>> >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 13:58:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please add my name.  Good job. --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:53 PM Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja   From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM To: anja at cis-india.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda   Hi Anja, Thanks for taking this up. Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt . This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all,  As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the DraftProgramme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is thecomplete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - infact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internetrights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a mainsession repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DCand the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations.Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as amain session at this point, I think it is important for us to at leastcomment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC toexpress, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could usesome of the wording of the April submission)   For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, Ialso would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internetand Society, Bangalore .   I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on InternetGovernance issues.  Anja    Dr. Anja KovacsFellowCentre for Internet and SocietyT: +91 80 4092 6283www.cis-india.org  ____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance           plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo be removed from the list, 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. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org   -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Aug 15 14:00:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Rights Message-ID: Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Rights I would like to canvas the List for ideas pertaining to "Rights". A few of the current Rights in the U.S. include: Youth rights Voting rights Freedom(s) rights Equality rights Labor rights Judicial rights Health Care rights ... The Question is: How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective the Right) ??? - Digression: When a Rights Declaration is codified (written into Law), it imparts "Entitlements" too the immediate Rights Class (the people affected), which is met with an expectation of Services and Welfare systems which are financially achievable/accessable by the affected Class. Currently in the United States there is a heated debate on Healthcare; How it should be paid for, How can it be Equally distributed, How can it be structured so that the Benefit($) are not abused by certain industrial Groups (Doctors, Pharmacy Co.s, Health Care Providers...), How can its Governance be maintained, etc. etc. ... One point of contention regarding Healthcare Rights, is that, Those in Political Office enjoy access to healthcare systems that are superior in respect to the variety and cost, as opposed to Citizens who's system of Healthcare is less in comparison. [In other words; Washington D.C.'s Senators and Representatives have a better healthcare package than the People they serve] Another comparable analogy is the State of California's Furlough program, where the State Employees are subject to Furlough Days (currently a 15% reduction in pay) and California State Legislature is not (Systemic/Ruling Class inequities). There is also debate on the Cost of 'Entitlement' by Public-vs-Private means; How, Who, and Who not should pay the cost of the Right's Entitlement. When we talk of Internet Rights, simular considerations need to be made for Declarations' of Rights , please use this as an analogy for IG Rights. Again... The Question is: How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective the Right) ??? Write a Declaration (of Rights) in response to this question, ... tailor it to IG Rights if you like. ----------------------------------------------------- This thread is intended for discussion during IG Open Topic Hours [5:00pm Fridays-11pm Sundays], Please respect that. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Sat Aug 15 15:09:48 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:09:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: IP Justice signs this letter. Thanks for your hard work. Best, Robin On Aug 15, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Please add my name. Good job. > > --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 > agenda > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , > "Ginger Paque" > Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:53 PM > > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > To: anja at cis-india.org > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 > agenda > > > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's > suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find > below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, > please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your > time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that > the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around > that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace? > func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained > as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this > topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main > session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the > Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The > WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, > explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these > commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning > is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around > the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We > recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet > Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt . This > should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the > definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, > and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It > also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of > all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework will continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time > for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that > those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can > add names before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to > strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the > IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included > as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For > those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for > Internet > and Society, > Bangalore . > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja > Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message > to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Aug 15 15:53:17 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:53:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Anja, ISOC Philippines Chapter previously sent a statement last May to the OC, through our Internet Governance Working Group that I chair, and read by Ginger, supporting Internet Rights and Principles as the theme for this year's IGF. So any concern on making Internet Rights and Principles in the IGF agenda, will have my support. I can also bring this up with a consensus again with my colleagues in ISOC PH and we may support it also as a group. Just for your FYI, here is the first paragraph of the statement we sent to the IGF Secretariat during the second OC: "The newly rejuvenated ISOC chapter of the Philippines would like to emphasize our interest for Internet Rights and Principles as a major theme for the IGF 2009. We address this theme with great support, as it is currently a vital and emerging topic for Internet Governance. This support is in line with ISOC Philippine’s upholding the spirit of core values that guide our policy work in our ability to connect, to speak, to innovate, to share, to choose , and to trust." Thank you for not giving up on this. Kindest regards. Charity G. Embley ISOC PH IGWG Chair On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF > Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided. This > seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then > hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns. One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights > > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were > > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open > > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings > > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed > > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during > > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two > > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by > > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance > > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable > > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal > > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter > > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of > > the day. > > > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and > > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically > > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual > > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal > > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private > > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet > > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting > > activities. > > > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this > > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically > > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders > > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the > > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in > > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be > > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and > > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or > > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the > end of > > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it > reaches > > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the > IGC > > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Anja > > > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that > > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of > > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme > for > > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and > in the > > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not > reflected > > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights > and > > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > to an > > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it > is > > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 > IGF > > > provide the space to do so. > > > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > > Governance Caucus. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and > > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they > relate to > > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and > > > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance > > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while > adding > > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and > applications > > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an > “open > > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality > > > discussions. > > > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > > > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anja, > > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the > > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who > > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before > > > you send it in? > > > > > > Best, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is > the > > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as > a > > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, > I > > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > > Governance issues. > > > > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 16:01:11 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:31:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <1250366471.2354.2.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear Charity, Thank you very much for reaffirming your support to this issue. However, I will need to send this to the IGF Secretariat within another ten hours or so - do you think this is sufficient time for you to check with your colleagues whether you want to extend institutional support, or shall I only add your name at the moment (with or without your organisational affiliation, as you prefer)? Do let me know how to proceed. Best wishes, Anja On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 14:53 -0500, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Anja, > > ISOC Philippines Chapter previously sent a statement last May to the > OC, through our Internet Governance Working Group that I chair, and > read by Ginger, supporting Internet Rights and Principles as the theme > for this year's IGF. So any concern on making Internet Rights and > Principles in the IGF agenda, will have my support. I can also bring > this up with a consensus again with my colleagues in ISOC PH and we > may support it also as a group. > > Just for your FYI, here is the first paragraph of the statement we > sent to the IGF Secretariat during the second OC: > > "The newly rejuvenated ISOC chapter of the Philippines would like to > emphasize our interest for Internet Rights and Principles as a major > theme for the IGF 2009. We address this theme with great support, as > it is currently a vital and emerging topic for Internet Governance. > This support is in line with ISOC Philippine’s upholding the spirit of > core values that guide our policy work in our ability to connect, to > speak, to innovate, to share, to choose , and to trust." > > Thank you for not giving up on this. > > Kindest regards. > Charity G. Embley > ISOC PH IGWG Chair > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, > I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by > the IGF > Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the > Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and > reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what > happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I > understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact > if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of > this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that > we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for > attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is > important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion > provided. This > seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the > Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep > up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right > now, then > hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed > by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, > here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his > concerns. One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF > agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different > stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of > Internet Rights > > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this > issue were > > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the > Open > > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the > MAG meetings > > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an > informed > > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this > issue during > > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into > account the two > > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three > days by > > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet > Governance > > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested > to enable > > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the > Universal > > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights > Charter > > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the > light of > > the day. > > > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse > and > > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not > specifically > > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for > mutual > > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks > equal > > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, > Private > > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on > Internet > > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda > setting > > activities. > > > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support > from this > > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you > physically > > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all > stakeholders > > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at > the > > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF > itself in > > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will > be > > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja > Kovacs wrote: > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's > suggestion, and > > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. > If you and/or > > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me > know by the end of > > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will > make sure it reaches > > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the > statement that the IGC > > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around > that time by > > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Anja > > > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that > > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item > on the agenda of > > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested > as a theme for > > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors > during and in the > > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread > support is not reflected > > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include > Internet Rights and > > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main > sessions. The WSIS > > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, > 2005, explicitly > > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights to an > > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments > meaningful, it is > > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly > building > > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet > Rights and > > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda > of the 2009 IGF > > > provide the space to do so. > > > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the > Civil Society Internet > > > Governance Caucus. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support > "Internet Rights and > > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This > should lead to > > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the > definition and > > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and > how they relate to > > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes > a space for > > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance > of openness and > > > universal access. This framework will continue to > emphasize the importance > > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding > > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content > and applications > > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates > regarding an “open > > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing > network neutrality > > > discussions. > > > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion > of the > > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to > each other. It > > > allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the > > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anja, > > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there > is time for the > > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, > so that those who > > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can > add names before > > > you send it in? > > > > > > Best, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on > the Draft > > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read > this paper is the > > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and > principles - in > > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - > despite Internet > > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic > for a main > > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the > IGC, the IRP DC > > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being > included as a > > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us > to at least > > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for > the IGC to > > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? > (we could use > > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to > interact before, I > > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre > for Internet > > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on > Internet > > > Governance issues. > > > > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 15 17:24:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:24:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Add me as well On 15/08/09 9:46 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> >> As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and >> have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your >> organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, >> 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF >> Secretariat. >> >> Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC >> submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by >> various groups and individuals can be found here: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id >> =14 >> >> Thanks, >> Anja >> >> Suggested statement: >> >> The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that >> Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of >> the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for >> this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the >> run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected >> in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and >> Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS >> Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly >> reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an >> inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of >> great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building >> understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and >> Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF >> provide the space to do so. >> >> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and >> Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to >> discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification >> of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing >> definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about >> the responsibilities of all parties. >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of >> access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to >> it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of >> their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an ³open >> Internet², and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It >> allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hi Anja, >>> I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the >>> list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>> >>> If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who >>> want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before >>> you send it in? >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>> some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>> and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>> Governance issues. >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> Fellow >>>> Centre for Internet and Society >>>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> Fellow >>>> Centre for Internet and Society >>>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 15 17:46:24 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:46:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220B34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > trash such issues out. > > Anja thrash? ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 17:59:47 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:59:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <808a83f60908151459x3266152ap4387568774b4c2f0@mail.gmail.com> Hello. I am relatively new to this list but I have been intently reading the discussions over the last few weeks. I would like to add my name to Anja's suggestion as well. Rgds, Tracy On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > *To:* anja at cis-india.org > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > > Hi Anja, > > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > *Suggested statement:* > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a > theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during > and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is > not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet > Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The > WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > *IGC Submission - April 2009:* > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 Sat Aug 15 18:31:16 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <273668.45519.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Please Add my Name Shaila Rao Mistry Individual Signer ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda >>Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >>>> >>>>As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. >>>> >>>>Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Anja >>>> >>>> Suggested statement: >>>> >>>>The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. >>>> >>>> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >>>>The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>>> >>>>The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >>>> >>>>The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>>> >>>>The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>>> >>>> >>>>On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >> >>Hi Anja, >>>>>>I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, >>>>>>Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>>Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>>>>>As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>>>>>>Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>>>>>>complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>>>>>>fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>>>>>>rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>>>>>>session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>>>>>>and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>>>>>>Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>>>>>>main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>>>>>>comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>>>>>>express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>>>>>>some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>>>>>>For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>>>>>>also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>>>>>>and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>>>>>>I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>>>>>>Governance issues. >>>> >>>>>>>>Anja >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>>>Fellow >>>>>>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>>>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>>>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>>>Fellow >>>>>>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>>>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>>>>> www.cis-india.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 Sat Aug 15 18:40:27 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> On second thought please add my name as an organization as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 when the WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. A lot of work has been put in by many people across the globe...I there anything we can do about this ? I am truly disappointed at this development!! Shaila Rao Mistry Internet Rights and Principles ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> >>As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. >> >>Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >> >>Thanks, >>Anja >> >> Suggested statement: >> >>The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. >> >> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >>The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >>The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >> >>The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >>The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >>On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >>Hi Anja, >>>I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>> >>>If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? >>> >>>Best, >>>Ginger >>> >>>Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>>Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>>complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>>fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>>rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>>session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>>and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>>Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>>main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>>comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>>express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>>some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>>For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>>also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>>and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>>I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>>Governance issues. >>>> >>>>Anja >>>> >>>> >>>>Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>Fellow >>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>Fellow >>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.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 baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 15 22:05:02 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:05:02 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Message-ID: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. > Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. > Trying reading more carefully next time. > All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Joe Baptista > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* Rui Correia > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits > because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the > quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., > > Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. > Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? > Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. > > > if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind > seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – > say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty > of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. > > More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are > here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. > > Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? > > regards > joe baptista > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM > > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > Dear All > > > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Aug 15 22:23:54 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:23:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: ,<545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Please add my name as well Lee W McKnight ________________________________________ From: shaila mistry [shailam at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda On second thought please add my name as an organization as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 when the WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. A lot of work has been put in by many people across the globe...I there anything we can do about this ? I am truly disappointed at this development!! Shaila Rao Mistry Internet Rights and Principles ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 22:43:50 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:43:50 -0700 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Rather than attempting to deal with personalities/intentions (viz. "trolls/trollism") I think we should focus on acceptable/unacceptable behaviours. In the lists I've hosted over the years I've adopted the "living room rule" i.e. any behaviour that I wouldn't accept in my living room I won't accept on an e-list that I host... The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour that is evidenced below and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. MBG -----Original Message----- From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. Trying reading more carefully next time. All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM _____ From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista _____ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 15 23:00:20 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Message-ID: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> On 8/15/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour > do you read latin? that is evidenced below > No it is not. You need latin to understand it. and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind > unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off > discussion and restrict participation. > > I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or > otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person > not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders > from the list accordingly. > Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for > the on-going effective functioning of this group. > It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I think the filter guy has the better idea. Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. cheers joe baptista MBG > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Joe Baptista > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] > Trying to > > > Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm > holding you accountable here in your public role. > > On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. >> > > Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with > me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You > set the minimum standards - abera lege? > > You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It > is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big > problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called > advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the > censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should > known better - isto pensitaris. > > You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter > and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look > after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very > impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the > TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard > Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non > disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. > > But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you > can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of > the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very > much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an > intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The > eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your > hands. > > You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. > Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your > forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. > > Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual > bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if > someone references that with your position. > > >> Trying reading more carefully next time. >> > > All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum > assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum > coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. > > kindest regards > joe baptista > > > > --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Joe Baptista >> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* Rui Correia >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >> Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits >> because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the >> quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., >> >> Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. >> Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? >> Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. >> >> >> if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind >> seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – >> say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty >> of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. >> >> More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you >> are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. >> >> Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM >> >> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> >> >> Dear All >> >> >> >> I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - >> that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on >> every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding >> the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. >> >> Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date >> announcements etc by list administrators. >> >> And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a >> time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than >> one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x >> hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair >> that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking >> into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. >> >> And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ >> "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change >> your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier >> position making it clear that that is what you are doing. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> >> 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with >> the issue of decision making capacity. >> >> >> The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates >> contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their >> membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific >> lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant >> within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or >> moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. >> >> The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not >> sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters >> don't prevent ad hominem attacks. >> >> After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 >> days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is >> so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. >> >> My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few >> options for action. >> One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion >> elsewhere. >> Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on >> abuse. >> >> The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to >> take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: >> >> "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those >> relating to: >> *No personal insults >> *No spam" >> >> The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of >> abuse and appropriate means of action against it. >> >> >> There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out >> coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present >> impasse and help restoring this discussion space. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 23:22:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Message-ID: <192210.58530.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> And what exactly is calling people trolls? --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Michael Gurstein wrote:    (viz. "trolls/trollism") I think we should focus on acceptable/unacceptable behaviours.  The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour that is evidenced below and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 16 00:21:46 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this will be challenged.   America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not run our rig that way.  Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives in governance, they are not law or treaty.  The Monroe Doctrine is a statement against a Holy Alliance that threatened to reinstate colonialism.  It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned on dealing with others.   All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders.  Internet governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with this forever necessity.  All nations should feel confident and indeed plan for future independence regarding telecommunications.  If the United States can effectively maintain and control access to information for other countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that reliance.   --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM Hello All, President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on notice that the US has cyberturf, and that we will defend our turf" It would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to the whole world.  What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in that sense. Why would Oracle say this? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini Carlton  I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.    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: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?   Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.   Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Aug 16 03:06:37 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:06:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: Please add my name if it's not too late. Sorry for my tardiness; I've been avoiding this list lately for reasons that will be familiar. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Aug 16 03:34:07 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:34:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: <20090816073407.GA13469@musti.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 03:06:37PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wrote: > Please add my name if it's not too late. Mine, likewise. > Sorry for my tardiness; I've been avoiding this list lately for > reasons that will be familiar. My apologies for lateness as well. -- Tapani Tarvainen Chairman, Electronic Frontier Finland (EFFI) email tapani.tarvainen at effi.org tel. +358-40-7293479 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cis-india.org Sun Aug 16 05:48:04 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:18:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] comment on draft programme paper now submitted Message-ID: <1250416084.3386.43.camel@cis5-laptop> The comment on the draft programme paper has now been submitted to the IGF Secretariat, as below. Thank you to all those who have extended their support at such short notice. I have been tremendously happy to see how many people have gotten back on this within only slightly more than 24 hours - it's encouraging to see what potential this list continues to have, despite recent events :) Best wishes, Anja Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. Signatories: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Trace F. Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Aug 16 06:00:13 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:00:13 +0700 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A87D8AD.4040807@gmx.net> Joe, the way you are defining yourself seems you aim to exclude yourself: some time ago you said something like "don't come me with arguments" as you will not accept arguments - but a mailing list is about arguments; now you accuse others of being elitist - but you write in Latin knowing that there will probably not be many who can read it - so your own writing shows you want to be elitist (which you disprove yourself by the dirty language you often use). Ridiculous. Norbert = Joe Baptista wrote: > > On 8/15/09, *Michael Gurstein* > wrote: > > > The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour > > > do you read latin? > > that is evidenced below > > > No it is not. You need latin to understand it. > > and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my > mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise > close off discussion and restrict participation. > > I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce > arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour > (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after > appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. > > > Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and > slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are > elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? > > > This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and > necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. > > > It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I > think the filter guy has the better idea. > > Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. > > cheers > joe baptista > -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: Cambodia Made It Again into the International Media http://tinyurl.com/m8n7je (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Sun Aug 16 11:25:06 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:25:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Dear Anja, Add my name too and Bytesforall, Pakistan. best wishes Shahzad ----- Original Message ----- From: Anja Kovacs To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 16 10:52:38 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:52:38 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B64751B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Joe, you've made my filter list. --MM ________________________________ From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] On 8/15/09, Michael Gurstein > wrote: The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour do you read latin? that is evidenced below No it is not. You need latin to understand it. and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I think the filter guy has the better idea. Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. cheers joe baptista MBG -----Original Message----- From: publicroot.info@gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. Trying reading more carefully next time. All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM ________________________________ From: publicroot.info@gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn't mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit - say, 5 per day - would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista ________________________________ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Aug 16 14:44:16 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> Not checking this list regularly, I hope there is still time -- please add my name and Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. --c.a. Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Anja, > > Add my name too and Bytesforall, Pakistan. > > best wishes > Shahzad > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anja Kovacs > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:20 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor --- Rits -------------------------------------------------- www.rits.org.br www.rets.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 avri at acm.org Sun Aug 16 14:56:53 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:56:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> On 16 Aug 2009, at 14:44, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Not checking this list regularly, I hope there is still time -- please > add my name and Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Hi, Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 16 15:08:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: Milton don't//Duties and Rights In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B64751B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <865589.33224.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have seldom been so aggravated by my inability to express my sadness.  This comment is by a good man.  This comment made in public is just horrible.  Everyone should have private filters.  Everyone should choose which mail to open, what TV to watch, what friend to ring up.  But to state in public, in a clear attempt to belittle and humiliate another  ---  in attempting to make oneself look better, is below bad charactar.  I respect Joe and Milton.  I am extremely saddend that they are so fustrated with current conditions that this is made public.    I have no right to criticize another mans' judgment.  But correspondingly I have no right to shirk my duty to say something when the dignity and human rights of another are degraded.  Milton please regain your own dignity and recapture a little of our trust in your judgment. --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: Joe, you’ve made my filter list. --MM   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 16:26:31 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <584449.51887.qm@web45202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger,  Please add my name   as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 and( in Tunisia2005)  when the  WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. Dina Hovakmian --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anja Kovacs" Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:45 PM Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 16:33:17 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250366471.2354.2.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <42621.26185.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 16 19:41:50 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:41:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Message-ID: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> On August 15, 2009 "Yehuda Katz" wrote: > Again... The Question is: > How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that > it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's > Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective > the Right) ??? Hi, I'm Paul Lehto, and this question of rights in the law of democracy is sort of my primary area of interest as a writer and former election law attorney (details below in case anyone's interested). I published in 2008 a lengthy legal encyclopedia article on the political theorists of democracy. My Short Answer (and I submit, ever so humbly, that the extended answer below is worth anyone's time that is interested in their own freedom or rights or of others' freedom and rights): The rights must be conceived and placed beyond the power of any group, government, individual or business to modify, even by amending a Constitution, and it must be a democracy of one person one vote equality, with universal suffrage, and recourse to the electorate on any issue deemed of importance to them (since they are in charge), by some reasonable procedure for invoking the rights of "We the People" Mid-Length Explanation or Foundation for the Above: Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. Karl Llewellyn said that the "law [itself] begins" here -- when two people disagree. But certainly rights are critical against any power, including majoritiarian power expressed through a legislature, if universal human rights and freedoms are to be preserved. The majority can't just silence the minority before or after it wins some legislative victory. If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or any other power to legitimately alter or control. Thus, such rights, while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived. They just get violated. Some call the above class of rights "inalienable" rights, others call them birthrights, still others call them nonderogable human rights, some call them natural law. Whatever they be termed, they are, as the most conservative founder of the USA put them (Alexander Hamilton, who at one point even offered up the idea of a king coming from Prussia!): "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records. The are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured BY MORTAL POWER." In other words, nothing on this earth can change the inalienable rights, they need not be, and often aren't, in Constitutions or "old parchments," they are derived from Reason Justice and the sense of right and wrong of our moral sense, which in turn are derived, depending on the preferences of who's the writer, either from Nature, Reason, Almighty God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and so on. The CRITICAL thing is that the rights are placed beyond "ANY MORTAL POWER'S" ability to LEGITIMATELY alter them. A constitution can be amended, at least by a supermajority and sometimes by a majority. If inalienable rights are placed in constitutions, they function only as reminders, and there's a danger in putting them there because it may become perceived that they are political footballs subject to majoritarian decisions or tyranny, when this is not so. If one wishes to be free from majoritarian tyrranny, or the tyranny of any large wealthy elites who may control government from inside or from outside via corporations or what have you (in the old days, the "political bosses" who were never themselves elected), then you must believe and conceive of the rights as outside human power to change. Inalienable birth rights, derived from Justice. Thomas Jefferson consciously tried to set forth ideals that would last centuries. But Ben Franklin put it most concisely when we said it was "commonly observed" in the colonies that they were not just fighting for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all humanity (Franklin said "mankind"). In addition, as Senator Henry Clay later echoed, the basic framework of rights was intended as a guide for "all posterity" -- literally forever into the future. Thus, in 1776 the battle was conceived quite commonly as for all the marbles: for all time and for the entire world. The Accomplishment: We the People stepped into the shoes of King George (and all possible kings and queens) as the sovereign, or ultimate and sole legitimate source of power. That idea of self-government, to put it in one word, is the core of the DEclaration of independence, and central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well. People without a say in the governance of their community are, as Thomas Paine the architect of the American Revolution wrote, "rendered slaves" -- and a slave is defined broadly as someone whose opinion doesn't matter because they don't have a vote or suffrage. The Limitation of 1776: Heavily armed and war weary after the American Revolution, there was no appetite for an immediate Civil War on the issue of slavery, which ultimately did happen and cost over 650,000 American lives. Yet, elections continued even amidst the Civil War, as Pres. Lincoln insisted, since to call them off would be to give victory to the principle being fought against: Slavery/Tyranny. THey are ultimately aspects of the same exact thing, and the opposites of Liberty and Freedom. Resolving COntroversy over 1776: The continuing course of history from thereon is a dissection or legalistic struggle, if you will, over what "we" means in "We the People." From modern perspectives, it seems utterly obvious that "we" means everyone -- universal suffrage of adults (anyone capable of a free choice to wish to vote). There's no prerequisite to voting under universal suffrage under than the wish to be an elector. Any restriction on it, according to Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" by definition creates an Aristocracy, since a Republic or Democracy vests control and ultimate power in ALL the people, while an Aristocracy invests that power in a subset of all the people (creating a class structure, in effect). However divisive and long-standing the debates were on abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and abolishing Jim Crow through modern civil rights, there's never been any real debate that "We the People" are the only legitimate sovereigns. That's a universal human right. While someone may favor an authoritarian idea as "efficient" or whatever, they can't call a spade a spade. IN some way they always parade as democracy and freedom, even though they definitely are not. This is a concession and admission of illegitimacy of authoritarian or aristocratic rule of any kind. Thus, the controversy has never been about who's in charge, it's always the people, it has only been about subdividing "we" in "we the people" and/or disguising that subdivision so that an elite class or person can control. The conception of equality prohibits elite control, and is inherent in modern conceptions of democracy and republics. "One person one vote" is one way to sum this equality up. CONCLUSION: While some critique political leaders of centuries ago for not accomplishing the work of the centuries (literally) in one fell swoop in 1776 or so, it's not fair to expect perfection given the circumstances that were present, with an engrained slave economy of great wealth and rule by a king with no vote. HOWEVER, the founders all personally opposed slavery and believed it would end within their lifetimes, but they were off by a few decades, but right in the end. Jefferson's first bill introduced in Virginia was against slavery. But as "property" and since Jefferson was always in great debt due to his enormous public service, he couldn't let his "property" go free without banks foreclosing on his whole farm, and having the slaves returned as fugitive slaves, on order of the foreclosing bank, in order to preserve the value of the "collateral" -- the farm and house at Monticello. I wish to indulge in that brief defense of Jefferson's slaveholding in order to allow a due appreciation of the sweeping revolutionary scope of the SECOND PARAGRAPH ALONE of the declaration of Independence. That has since inspired countless revolutions around the world, and its basic ideas are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As President LIncoln later observed, most aptly, the concept of Equality was NO NECESSARY PART of achieving separation or "independence" from Great Britain. It was placed there, Lincoln expressly said "FOR FUTURE PURPOSES." I call Democracy, Equality and Freedom "guidestars." While we may never perfectly achieve all of them, like the stars in the sky, especially the North Star, if we do not constantly seek them out and sail our ships of state by them, we will TRULY be lost. Please note that in following the stars, we may not get to the stars, but we are not hypocrites if we are trying our best. Only those not trying their reasonable best are hypocrites, the rest are more like Olympic athletes in training for gold medals -- only one of thousands will reach the dream, but the rest are never thought of as hypocrites, they are more like heroes than hypocrites. So was Jefferson, a hero in his times. Every generation must use the guidestars to push things forward and adjust in THEIR time. Democracy makes a VERY wide tent. Jefferson used the term "Nature and Nature's God" to make a tent that agnostics and atheists as well as theists could read and think that the ultimate source of rights was sound to them. But despite the very wide tent, there are a few lines that can't ever be legitimately crossed, Those are the rights that are inalienable, and with every right is a correlative duty on everyone else's part to respect that right. Let's say we are theists, all, now. The inalienable rights, coming from God, are beyond any mortal power or superpower to change. Inalienable birthrights are akin to, but more expansive than, the international laws called jus cogens, which are binding without treaty and prohibit, even in time of war and no matter the excuse, the crimes of genocide, slavery, torture and inhumane treatment of war prisoners, to give some examples. Inalienable rights are possessed SIMPLY because we are HUMAN, and for no other reason, except the voting right which is triggered at age of majority when free will choices can be made and the child is legally no longer the ward or under control of the adults (which would spoil a ballot actually or potentially by intimidation, though parents wouldn't think of it quite that way, they'd call it "guidance" or "help") In addition to rights there must be ACCOUNTABILITY. Transparency is the bit too abstract term that is the informational prerequisite to accountability. What is secret or unknown is not accountable. Nobody can rationally approve of nontransparency to We the People, the bosses and sovereigns of our countries, except in extraordinary situations, perhaps of national security, but in all cases nontransparency always means unaccountability, and nobody can favor unaccountable government, especially since secrecy is an open invitation to fraud and worse. "Transparency" must be more than just information. If there are no remedies of control, like elections, referenda, and the like, mere information is like being stuck on the train tracks with clear windows (getting ALL information) but having no steering wheel, gas pedal or brake. Without CONTROL or "remedies" to use a legal term, one might wish for non-transparency, and have an instantaneous death on the train track instead of a long moment of absolute horror.... Currently, many shortfalls in governance are centered on the area of lack of control or remedies. Political promises in campaigns are unenforceable and widely not kept, or perceived as such, and there's no right of recall at least in the USA on the federal level. Thus, cynics can say that we elect a dictator for a four year term, since impeachment has seemed to be the sole remedy and also been apparently toothless. Whether or not one agrees with the cynical view, it is nevertheless true that the vindication of democracy, equality and freedom requires more control by the people. WIthout that, and to the extent of its absence, a de facto unaccountability of government takes its place, albeit for a term of years (presuming elections are fair, transparent, open and honest and not fraudulent either in the vote counts or in choices presented to the electorate). So there you have my answer, which is mostly only my framing or expression, but the ideas are timeless, the dream of the centuries. It's why for the most part people only risk their lives for democracy or religion: what's perceived as ideals noble and important enough to justify such a risk. (Family, however broadly or narrowly conceived, is another). The political theories are not mine per se but everyone's, albeit authored by many famous individuals, or rather expressed by them. The only thing I lay any personal claim to is the thoughts about the twin aspects of information and control comprising any meaningful accountability to the governed, and the analogy of the railroad track to explain why informational transparency, alone, is insufficient. Accountability is absolutely crucial if We the People are to remain the ultimate "boss" of our country (in our collective capacity, and literally sovereign only in our acts of voting, and not the rest of the year in which we must follow the rule of law, presuming it is just and not void, and thus are subjects of the law, except when voting in our sovereign capacity). In a sense, one need not draft ANYTHING for these most important rights, and indeed it is dangerous to do so to the extent the document is then wrongly perceived or construed as limiting the scope of the rights or forgetting their source. Check almost any state constitution within the USA and you will see it begin "Grateful to Almighty God for our Rights" (California) and so on. :) (CAPS are not yelling for me!) BUT THE FIRST STEP IS TO GET THOSE PRECIOUS RIGHTS OUT OF THE HANDS OF ANYONE WHO CAN TINKER WITH THEM. If one does draft something, one should ensure that it makes clear what the source of rights is, that government guarantees but never grants fundamental rights, and that putting them into written form is merely intended as a partial guide for the guidance of anyone in power, since power always corrupts, so they don't "forget" what their true task and trusteeship is. They hold only delegated power, and are accountable to the governed on a basis of equality. Even the most conservative have conceded the inalienable rights point (Hamilton, above) and even the most conservative in past centuries conceded the We the People are the only legitimate power. THEREFORE WE MUST WATCH OUT FOR FRAUD, theater instead of real politics, and "puppetmasters", because no one can OPENLY rule as a dictator or aristocracy. No matter what problems anyone may come up with in the right of the people as a whole to rule, rest assured that the problems in justifying aristocracy or dictatorship and the like are FAR greater in terms of being problematic. It's really simple: by unanimous consent, NOBODY has a better claim than we the people to be the ultimate power or sovereign. The thing to protect against is sophisticated fraud, since anyone who thinks they have better ideas than the average person is pretty likely to inflict them on everyone "for their own good" if not out of any hostile sense. Thus, in assessing and protecting against fraudulent governments and fraudulent elections (the primary accountability mechanism) the most important consideration of all is that open attack is not available, only covert or secret attack, pretending to be democracy, and thus that fraud in elections, especially since the government runs them and they determine the government's own composition and power, is an eternal and extremely great risk, since no human being can be trusted to determine their own power level. Thus, I'd concentrate on protecting elections and any other control mechanisms to make them utterly transparent. if elections are not 100% transparent, the fraud or undetected error will concentrate in the even 1% non-transparency, and a fraudulent freedom is or will eventually be created. (This is much like leaving 9 out of 10 doors locked, creating 10% nontransparency, by analogy. The burglar will always move to and find the unlocked door or window). Indeed, in elections, the unlocked door or window, so to speak, is published in the law books or the policies and freely available to any insider crook (the government equivalent of embezzlers) or outside crook, so it's like having 9 of ten doors locked but having a bright neon sign flashing that says "UNLOCKED DOOR HERE" and having that sign in every law library in the country and on the internet as well. NOT A GOOD IDEA, I don't think. Total transparency in all essential aspects of elections (except the personal casting of one vote) is absolutely essential, and inalienable, if one wishes to protect freedom, i.e. the right of we the people to control our own destinies and not be slaves and the individual rights to be free of majoritarian tyrannies of all kinds as well. All of the transparency elements of information and of voter control are inherent completely in the notion of the Accountability to the Governed (which should be all voters in a universal suffrage situation) I'd be happy to answer any questions or objections either on the email here or on the phone (contact information at very bottom). I've never really had any fundamental objections though, happy to say, but only folks who go on and ignore all of the above as if it didn't exist but refuse to say they oppose it. The key, really, is the "diffusion of education" as Jefferson put it, of the inalienable rights of all humanity. Yours democratically, Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Background to Introduction: I am a Juris Doctor in the USA, practiced election law and consumer protection law for twelve years before a very serious health crisis, and now am an independent legal scholar in the area of the law of democracy, published in the areas of political theorists of democracy, federal and state election law, Bush v. Gore, and scandals in state and local elections in extended legal encyclopedia articles as well as chapters in books on voting systems and elections. Before ceasing my sole law practice, I did both state and congressional election contest litigation, have a couple of published legal cases, served on the Board of Governors of my state Bar and by appointment of the Supreme Court of the state to the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education committee, with authority over what lawyers need to do to remain educated and competent in the law. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 01:03:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <573608.5136.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul,   Your work here is fantastic. To my humble mind and logic it is accurate and well reasoned. It is a good guide and capstone to any work in the field of human rights.    The partial conclusion that we must continually strive to reach which we cannot possibly acutally accomplish, could bring about a sense of futility, but any good builder knows that no matter how perfectly they build a house, it needs constant upkeep and vigiliance in remodeling and morphing to remain a home.   Your particulars and citations regarding the inalienableness and divine nature of human rights is well parsed.  But here we have logical divergence.  A divergence that should never interfere with our ability to work together yet independently.  A divergence that demands "respectful interface".  Seperate conclusions that require us to listen and not filter out what we do not want to hear.  If human rights are inalienable and of a nature predetermined and devine* then man cannot and will never be able to deny them.  If you place me in binds and turn me into a beaten and denied slave you still have not taken away my rights.  They live on regardless of your inhuman behavior.  But we both come to the same conclusion  -- what we are talking of here is the enforcement in the corporeal of our rights as men**.   * Devine here is used in a sense of "not of man, but more absolute. ** Men is used here in keeping with tradition. God can be a her, and founding fathers can be mothers. Obviously there can never be anything approaching sexism in human rights -- lest they be human wrongs. --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: Re: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 11:41 PM On August 15, 2009 "Yehuda Katz" wrote: > Again... The Question is: > How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that > it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's > Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective > the Right) ??? Hi, I'm Paul Lehto, and this question of rights in the law of democracy is sort of my primary area of interest as a writer and former election law attorney (details below in case anyone's interested).  I published in 2008 a lengthy legal encyclopedia article on the political theorists of democracy. My Short Answer (and I submit, ever so humbly, that the extended answer below is worth anyone's time that is interested in their own freedom or rights or of others' freedom and rights): The rights must be conceived and placed beyond the power of any group, government, individual or business to modify, even by amending a Constitution, and it must be a democracy of one person one vote equality, with universal suffrage, and recourse to the electorate on any issue deemed of importance to them (since they are in charge), by some reasonable procedure for invoking the rights of "We the People" Mid-Length Explanation or Foundation for the Above: Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. Karl Llewellyn said that the "law [itself] begins" here -- when two people disagree.  But certainly rights are critical against any power, including majoritiarian power expressed through a legislature, if universal human rights and freedoms are to be preserved.  The majority can't just silence the minority before or after it wins some legislative victory. If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or any other power to legitimately alter or control.   Thus, such rights, while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived.  They just get violated. Some call the above class of rights "inalienable" rights, others call them birthrights, still others call them nonderogable human rights, some call them natural law. Whatever they be termed, they are, as the most conservative founder of the USA put them (Alexander Hamilton, who at one point even offered up the idea of a king coming from Prussia!): "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records.  The are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured BY MORTAL POWER." In other words, nothing on this earth can change the inalienable rights, they need not be, and often aren't, in Constitutions or "old parchments," they are derived from Reason Justice and the sense of right and wrong of our moral sense, which in turn are derived, depending on the preferences of who's the writer, either from Nature, Reason, Almighty God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and so on. The CRITICAL thing is that the rights are placed beyond "ANY MORTAL POWER'S" ability to LEGITIMATELY alter them. A constitution can be amended, at least by a supermajority and sometimes by a majority.  If inalienable rights are placed in constitutions, they function only as reminders, and there's a danger in putting them there because it may become perceived that they are political footballs subject to majoritarian decisions or tyranny, when this is not so. If one wishes to be free from majoritarian tyrranny, or the tyranny of any large wealthy elites who may control government from inside or from outside via corporations or what have you (in the old days, the "political bosses" who were never themselves elected), then you must believe and conceive of the rights as outside human power to change. Inalienable birth rights, derived from Justice. Thomas Jefferson consciously tried to set forth ideals that would last centuries.  But Ben Franklin put it most concisely when we said it was "commonly observed" in the colonies that they were not just fighting for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all humanity (Franklin said "mankind").    In addition, as Senator Henry Clay later echoed, the basic framework of rights was intended as a guide for "all posterity" -- literally forever into the future.  Thus, in 1776 the battle was conceived quite commonly as for all the marbles:  for all time and for the entire world. The Accomplishment:  We the People stepped into the shoes of King George (and all possible kings and queens) as the sovereign, or ultimate and sole legitimate source of power.  That idea of self-government, to put it in one word, is the core of the DEclaration of independence, and central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well.  People without a say in the governance of their community are, as Thomas Paine the architect of the American Revolution wrote, "rendered slaves" -- and a slave is defined broadly as someone whose opinion doesn't matter because they don't have a vote or suffrage. The Limitation of 1776:  Heavily armed and war weary after the American Revolution, there was no appetite for an immediate Civil War on the issue of slavery, which ultimately did happen and cost over 650,000 American lives.   Yet, elections continued even amidst the Civil War, as Pres. Lincoln insisted, since to call them off would be to give victory to the principle being fought against: Slavery/Tyranny.  THey are ultimately aspects of the same exact thing, and the opposites of Liberty and Freedom. Resolving COntroversy over 1776:  The continuing course of history from thereon is a dissection or legalistic struggle, if you will, over what "we" means in "We the People."  From modern perspectives, it seems utterly obvious that "we" means everyone -- universal suffrage of adults (anyone capable of a free choice to wish to vote).  There's no prerequisite to voting under universal suffrage under than the wish to be an elector.  Any restriction on it, according to Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" by definition creates an Aristocracy, since a Republic or Democracy vests control and ultimate power in ALL the people, while an Aristocracy invests that power in a subset of all the people (creating a class structure, in effect).    However divisive and long-standing the debates were on abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and abolishing Jim Crow through modern civil rights, there's never been any real debate that "We the People" are the only legitimate sovereigns.  That's a universal human right.  While someone may favor an authoritarian idea as "efficient" or whatever, they can't call a spade a spade. IN some way they always parade as democracy and freedom, even though they definitely are not.  This is a concession and admission of illegitimacy of authoritarian or aristocratic rule of any kind.     Thus, the controversy has never been about who's in charge, it's always the people, it has only been about subdividing "we" in "we the people" and/or disguising that subdivision so that an elite class or person can control. The conception of equality prohibits elite control, and is inherent in modern conceptions of democracy and republics.  "One person one vote" is one way to sum this equality up. CONCLUSION:  While some critique political leaders of centuries ago for not accomplishing the work of the centuries (literally) in one fell swoop in 1776 or so, it's not fair to expect perfection given the circumstances that were present, with an engrained slave economy of great wealth and rule by a king with no vote.  HOWEVER, the founders all personally opposed slavery and believed it would end within their lifetimes, but they were off by a few decades, but right in the end. Jefferson's first bill introduced in Virginia was against slavery. But as "property" and since Jefferson was always in great debt due to his enormous public service, he couldn't let his "property" go free without banks foreclosing on his whole farm, and having the slaves returned as fugitive slaves, on order of the foreclosing bank, in order to preserve the value of the "collateral" -- the farm and house at Monticello. I wish to indulge in that brief defense of Jefferson's slaveholding in order to allow a due appreciation of the sweeping revolutionary scope of the SECOND PARAGRAPH ALONE of the declaration of Independence. That has since inspired countless revolutions around the world, and its basic ideas are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  As President LIncoln later observed, most aptly, the concept of Equality was NO NECESSARY PART of achieving separation or "independence" from Great Britain.  It was placed there, Lincoln expressly said "FOR FUTURE PURPOSES." I call Democracy, Equality and Freedom "guidestars."  While we may never perfectly achieve all of them, like the stars in the sky, especially the North Star, if we do not constantly seek them out and sail our ships of state by them, we will TRULY be lost.  Please note that in following the stars, we may not get to the stars, but we are not hypocrites if we are trying our best.  Only those not trying their reasonable best are hypocrites, the rest are more like Olympic athletes in training for gold medals -- only one of thousands will reach the dream, but the rest are never thought of as hypocrites, they are more like heroes than hypocrites.  So was Jefferson, a hero in his times. Every generation must use the guidestars to push things forward and adjust in THEIR time. Democracy makes a VERY wide tent. Jefferson used the term "Nature and Nature's God" to make a tent that agnostics and atheists as well as theists could read and think that the ultimate source of rights was sound to them. But despite the very wide tent, there are a few lines that can't ever be legitimately crossed, Those are the rights that are inalienable, and with every right is a correlative duty on everyone else's part to respect that right. Let's say we are theists, all, now.   The inalienable rights, coming from God, are beyond any mortal power or superpower to change. Inalienable birthrights are akin to, but more expansive than, the international laws called jus cogens, which are binding without treaty and prohibit, even in time of war and no matter the excuse, the crimes of genocide, slavery, torture and inhumane treatment of war prisoners, to give some examples. Inalienable rights are possessed SIMPLY because we are HUMAN, and for no other reason, except the voting right which is triggered at age of majority when free will choices can be made and the child is legally no longer the ward or under control of the adults (which would spoil a ballot actually or potentially by intimidation, though parents wouldn't think of it quite that way, they'd call it "guidance" or "help") In addition to rights there must be ACCOUNTABILITY. Transparency is the bit too abstract term that is the informational prerequisite to accountability.  What is secret or unknown is not accountable.  Nobody can rationally approve of nontransparency to We the People, the bosses and sovereigns of our countries, except in extraordinary situations, perhaps of national security, but in all cases nontransparency always means unaccountability, and nobody can favor unaccountable government, especially since secrecy is an open invitation to fraud and worse. "Transparency" must be more than just information.  If there are no remedies of control, like elections, referenda, and the like, mere information is like being stuck on the train tracks with clear windows (getting ALL information) but having no steering wheel, gas pedal or brake.  Without CONTROL or "remedies" to use a legal term, one might wish for non-transparency, and have an instantaneous death on the train track instead of a long moment of absolute horror.... Currently, many shortfalls in governance are centered on the area of lack of control or remedies.  Political promises in campaigns are unenforceable and widely not kept, or perceived as such, and there's no right of recall at least in the USA on the federal level.  Thus, cynics can say that we elect a dictator for a four year term, since impeachment has seemed to be the sole remedy and also been apparently toothless.  Whether or not one agrees with the cynical view, it is nevertheless true that the vindication of democracy, equality and freedom requires more control by the people.  WIthout that, and to the extent of its absence, a de facto unaccountability of government takes its place, albeit for a term of years (presuming elections are fair, transparent, open and honest and not fraudulent either in the vote counts or in choices presented to the electorate). So there you have my answer, which is mostly only my framing or expression, but the ideas are timeless, the dream of the centuries. It's why for the most part people only risk their lives for democracy or religion: what's perceived as ideals noble and important enough to justify such a risk. (Family, however broadly or narrowly conceived, is another).  The political theories are not mine per se but everyone's, albeit authored by many famous individuals, or rather expressed by them.  The only thing I lay any personal claim to is the thoughts about the twin aspects of information and control comprising any meaningful accountability to the governed, and the analogy of the railroad track to explain why informational transparency, alone, is insufficient. Accountability is absolutely crucial if We the People are to remain the ultimate "boss" of our country (in our collective capacity, and literally sovereign only in our acts of voting, and not the rest of the year in which we must follow the rule of law, presuming it is just and not void, and thus are subjects of the law, except when voting in our sovereign capacity). In a sense, one need not draft ANYTHING for these most important rights, and indeed it is dangerous to do so to the extent the document is then wrongly perceived or construed as limiting the scope of the rights or forgetting their source.  Check almost any state constitution within the USA and  you will see it begin "Grateful to Almighty God for our Rights" (California) and so on. :)   (CAPS are not yelling for me!)  BUT THE FIRST STEP IS TO GET THOSE PRECIOUS RIGHTS OUT OF THE HANDS OF ANYONE WHO CAN TINKER WITH THEM.  If one does draft something, one should ensure that it makes clear what the source of rights is, that government guarantees but never grants fundamental rights, and that putting them into written form is merely intended as a partial guide for the guidance of anyone in power, since power always corrupts, so they don't "forget" what their true task and trusteeship is.  They hold only delegated power, and are accountable to the governed on a basis of equality. Even the most conservative have conceded the inalienable rights point (Hamilton, above) and even the most conservative in past centuries conceded the We the People are the only legitimate power.  THEREFORE WE MUST WATCH OUT FOR FRAUD, theater instead of real politics, and "puppetmasters", because no one can OPENLY rule as a dictator or aristocracy. No matter what problems anyone may come up with in the right of the people as a whole to rule, rest assured that the problems in justifying aristocracy or dictatorship and the like are FAR greater in terms of being problematic.   It's really simple: by unanimous consent, NOBODY has a better claim than we the people to be the ultimate power or sovereign.  The thing to protect against is sophisticated fraud, since anyone who thinks they have better ideas than the average person is pretty likely to inflict them on everyone "for their own good" if not out of any hostile sense.  Thus, in assessing and protecting against fraudulent governments and fraudulent elections (the primary accountability mechanism) the most important consideration of all is that open attack is not available, only covert or secret attack, pretending to be democracy, and thus that fraud in elections, especially since the government runs them and they determine the government's own composition and power, is an eternal and extremely great risk, since no human being can be trusted to determine their own power level.   Thus, I'd concentrate on protecting elections and any other control mechanisms to make them utterly transparent. if elections are not 100% transparent, the fraud or undetected error will concentrate in the even 1% non-transparency, and a fraudulent freedom is or will eventually be created. (This is much like leaving 9 out of 10 doors locked, creating 10% nontransparency, by analogy. The burglar will always move to and find the unlocked door or window). Indeed, in elections, the unlocked door or window, so to speak, is published in the law books or the policies and freely available to any insider crook (the government equivalent of embezzlers) or outside crook, so it's like having 9 of ten doors locked but having a bright neon sign flashing that says "UNLOCKED DOOR HERE" and having that sign in every law library in the country and on the internet as well.   NOT A GOOD IDEA, I don't think. Total transparency in all essential aspects of elections (except the personal casting of one vote) is absolutely essential,  and inalienable, if one wishes to protect freedom, i.e. the right of we the people to control our own destinies and not be slaves and the individual rights to be free of majoritarian tyrannies of all kinds as well.  All of the transparency elements of information and of voter control are inherent completely in the notion of the Accountability to the Governed (which should be all voters in a universal suffrage situation) I'd be happy to answer any questions or objections either on the email here or on the phone (contact information at very bottom). I've never really had any fundamental objections though, happy to say, but only folks who go on and ignore all of the above as if it didn't exist but refuse to say they oppose it. The key, really, is the "diffusion of education" as Jefferson put it, of the inalienable rights of all humanity. Yours democratically, Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Background to Introduction:  I am a Juris Doctor in the USA, practiced election law and consumer protection law for twelve years before a very serious health crisis, and now am an independent legal scholar in the area of the law of democracy, published in the areas of political theorists of democracy, federal and state election law, Bush v. Gore, and scandals in state and local elections in extended legal encyclopedia articles as well as chapters in books on voting systems and elections. Before ceasing my sole law practice, I did both state and congressional election contest litigation, have a couple of published legal cases, served on the Board of Governors of my state Bar and by appointment of the Supreme Court of the state to the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education committee, with authority over what lawyers need to do to remain educated and competent in the law. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Aug 17 01:30:11 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a In-Reply-To: 76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Thank you Paul, the response was excellent, and causes me to ask a few questions (non-Socratic). Embracing your terms of "inalienable", when one is crafting a Constitution (K), then the placement of text that pertains to 'defined human rights' would be within in the document's body (unalterable), and any Amendments to that (K) are attached thereafter. Or, are you saying that your (K) can not be amended? - Regarding the 'Rights' are they 'Defensive Rights' or 'Entitlement Rights', is there a distinction among the Rights? Example 'Defensive Rights': 2nd Amendment - The Right to bare Arms, Example 'Entitlement Rights': The Right to Vote. - Could you please expand your discussion in the area of economics of the declared Rights. (How would your (K) fund the Entitlements?) -- Sorry I have run late today, its 10pm Sunday here in California, and I have to comply with my own cannon, regarding the Mail list hours. I didn't want you to wait until Friday for a response. You answered a few other questions that we have been stymied with. Take your time, I'm looking forward to reading about Entitlement Economics next Friday. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cis-india.org Mon Aug 17 02:33:11 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:03:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> Message-ID: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Hi Avri and all, On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 14:56 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem > submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names > of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. That's a good suggestion. I'm happy to collect signatures of all those who email the list or me before, say, Friday, and to send the updated list of signatories to the IGF Secretariat then. So do please still express your support if you would like to join this effort. Anja > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:36:01 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:36:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and Principles" [was: deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda] Message-ID: Hi Anja Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious omission! PLEASE ADD MY NAME! As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as a result, many are not keeping up. The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF 2009". However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet rights! I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. Keep up the good efforts, Regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 04:10:52 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric, Why not save us all the guess work and tell us once and for all that you and others of your coterie get paid (and how much) by ICANN/ US Dept to work against common civil society interests in the free world? The internet reveals much including past ICANN inbreeding and other associations. You would do better to dress up in a wolf costume trying to convince us that you are Little Red Riding Hood! What is your issue now with "America" (sic [there is no such thing! - America or the Americas is a/ are continents that comprise A NUMBER OF countries, not just the US of A])? Rui 2009/8/16 Eric Dierker > I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this > type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us > hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this > will be challenged. > > America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not > run our rig that way. Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives > in governance, they are not law or treaty. The Monroe Doctrine is a > statement against a *Holy Alliance* that threatened to reinstate > colonialism. It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned > on dealing with others. > > All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders. Internet > governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with > this forever necessity. All nations should feel confident and indeed plan > for future independence regarding telecommunications. If the United States > can effectively maintain and control access to information for other > countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that > reliance. > > > > --- On *Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" > Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang"" > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM > > Hello All, > > President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign > political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression > requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. > > Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on > notice that the *US has cyberturf,* and that we will defend our turf" It > would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that > would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to > the whole world. What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in > that sense. > > Why would Oracle say this? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini > > > >> Carlton >> I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be >> naïve on this. >> >> *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:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com[mailto: >> carlton.samuels at gmail.com] >> *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? >> >> >> Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can >> attest to that. >> >> Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while >> we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in >> the space as merely collateral damage. >> >> The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either >> cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign >> explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of >> the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the >> latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered >> "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral >> extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, >> mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never >> recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly >> does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central >> America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even >> mention Haiti. >> >> Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre >> ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we >> say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and >> its impact on the future. >> >> History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! >> >> Carlton Samuels >> 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> > >> Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where >> she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended >> version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. >> >> If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the >> contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, >> that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, >> what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the >> diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look >> rather different. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 17 05:53:44 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:53:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline / Rights and Principles meeting In-Reply-To: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215BB1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Firstly, thanks Anja for pulling this together at such short notice, and please do add my name to the list. Secondly, the Internet Rights and Principles coalition is having a meeting in Geneva before the European Dialogue on Internet Governance on Sunday 13th September. This will provide an opportunity to discuss what we do mean by "internet rights and principles", and work out strategies for incorporating rights standards and considerations in to internet governance. The meeting is open to all, so please do come along. Exact venue still tbc, but let me know if you're interested and we can keep you in the loop. We'll also be facilitating remote participation. We'll be feeding the outcomes of the meeting into the IGF preparation meetings, and have been promised space within the programme to do that by Markus. So please do come along, in person or virtually, and hopefully we can make some progress in this field. The agenda is here - http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/166. Feel free to edit and add ideas and suggestions. All the best, Lisa _________________________________________________________ Lisa Horner Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251  Mobile: +44 7867 795859 lisa at global-partners.co.uk  www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 17 August 2009 07:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Hi Avri and all, On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 14:56 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem > submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names > of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. That's a good suggestion. I'm happy to collect signatures of all those who email the list or me before, say, Friday, and to send the updated list of signatories to the IGF Secretariat then. So do please still express your support if you would like to join this effort. Anja > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4340 (20090816) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4341 (20090817) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4341 (20090817) __________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 07:06:48 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:06:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: I would please - Deirdre Williams. Thank you for the opportunity. Deirdre 2009/8/17 Anja Kovacs : ... > So do please still express your support if you would like to join this > effort. > > Anja > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 08:36:50 2009 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:36:50 -0600 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also add my name please. Thanks, Jaco A. 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : > Hi Anja > > Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious > omission! > > PLEASE ADD MY NAME! > > As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as a > result, many are not keeping up. > > The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that > people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and > therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF 2009". > However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet > rights! > > I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the > hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. > > Keep up the good efforts, > > Regards, > > Rui > > > > 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > >> Dear all, >> >> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >> some of the wording of the April submission) >> >> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >> and Society, Bangalore. >> >> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >> Governance issues. >> >> Anja >> >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> Fellow >> Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> www.cis-india.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 >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil Jaco Aizenman L. Presidente Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF ------------------------ My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 08:40:58 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:40:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Add my name, I am signatory All the best Aaron On 8/17/09, Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Also add my name please. > > Thanks, > > Jaco A. > > 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : >> Hi Anja >> >> Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious >> omission! >> >> PLEASE ADD MY NAME! >> >> As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as >> a >> result, many are not keeping up. >> >> The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that >> people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and >> therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF >> 2009". >> However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet >> rights! >> >> I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the >> hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. >> >> Keep up the good efforts, >> >> Regards, >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for com