From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Dec 1 04:01:36 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:01:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] Future of IGF In-Reply-To: <4B112DE1.6070402@itforchange.net> References: <4B112DE1.6070402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <353FA42B-BCE3-4342-8330-D0BB43399B3B@ciroap.org> On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate > - which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy > development - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF > review issue from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take > over' (we have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken > strongly against making any such move). In such a reactive stance, > any openness towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF > for the purpose of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems > largely absent. Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple pie and kittens. > We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, > of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups > as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging > advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of > plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG > model ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant > discourse, of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of > what can be achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite > task, where some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time > bound manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG > issues within the IGF framework? This should have been in the IGC statement. > Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of > structural changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. > Much of the negotiations in the next few months will take place > around that. Does the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on > this, and its members try to advocate it with other actors? If we > plan to do it, we need to do it in the next month or so. I propose > that the co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming > weeks. I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf) . I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 09:00:55 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:30:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <353FA42B-BCE3-4342-8330-D0BB43399B3B@ciroap.org> References: <4B112DE1.6070402@itforchange.net> <353FA42B-BCE3-4342-8330-D0BB43399B3B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B152197.5090202@paque.net> "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." Hi Jeremy, If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a working group with interested people from the list, and then post your suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. > > Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which > was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, > we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and > enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the > importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the > Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really > pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and > otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple > pie and kittens. > >> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >> of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >> within the IGF framework? > > This should have been in the IGC statement. > >> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. > > I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book > that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons > at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible > precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at > http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). I will > be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform > of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 09:02:45 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:32:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Message-ID: <4B152205.8070202@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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 09:30:53 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:30:53 -0400 Subject: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example In-Reply-To: <4B0FC65D.7@itforchange.net> References: <4B0FC65D.7@itforchange.net> Message-ID: To coin a phrase I am “differently worlded”. My home is the small island state of Saint Lucia in the Eastern Caribbean. To travel to the Internet Governance Forum at Sharm el Sheikh I made reservations online with Virgin Atlantic and British Airways and paid with my credit card, parent bank in Barbados (although I notice that the statements arrive from Florida). No problem. So what’s different? Nothing as far as that transaction was concerned. When I came home from Egypt I tried to book tickets for myself and my husband to travel to Lima in Peru to visit our daughter for Christmas. I was initially bitterly disappointed because it seemed impossible to get reservations, but to my great joy I found seats during a last try on Saturday morning. Sunday was graduation at the college where I teach – as soon as that was over I went down to the airport to pay. The office was closed. The office was closed for the weekend. My precious reservation would expire at one minute to midnight. I rushed home, only to discover that the “24 hour reservation number” doesn’t work on Sunday evenings in Saint Lucia – although we have daily American Eagle flights to Puerto Rico and also American Airlines flights to Miami several days a week including Sundays. I eventually got hold of Bradley at American Eagle in Castries. He was very sorry but he couldn’t help – what I was asking for was an extension of the payment deadline to the following morning when the office would open and I could pay. I was making contact via skype with a friend in Toronto to ask him to call on my behalf to see what he could do, since the other numbers given by American don’t work from here, when a miracle happened. Bradley called back. He had managed to extend my reservation. Yesterday I went to the airport with the money – almost $3000 US – to pay for the tickets. Even then I was charged an extra $40 US for “ticketing”. About 10 years ago I was following a discussion on the GKD list about the wonders of the Internet for business. At that time I was trying to get my second daughter from Lima to London. I found just what I wanted online with KLM – except that they wouldn’t take my credit card, so I had to transfer the money, expensively, to Lima so that she could pay for the ticket there. I lost my temper comprehensively online – and “met” so many nice people who sympathised but were unable to help I believe that the south perceives the north fairly accurately, but the north is somehow unable to perceive the south. Rights should be equal in so far as that is possible. If a right is a human right then it is an entitlement of people everywhere. American Airlines, Kindle and the Government of Pakistan all have rights too, but their rights are subservient to our rights, since they are made of us. I think that this a something that the process of the IGF is reminding us about – I hope successfully. Best wishes Deirdre 2009/11/27 Parminder > Hi All > > Getting late into something which as Carlos said is an interesting > discussion... > > Even if we agree to not apply the terms authoritarianism and human rights > here, the underlying issue is of great importance suggesting urgent need for > global Internet policy making, and developing institutions that are adequate > to that purpose. The issue also suggests that existing global policy > institutions do not cover a good deal of new ground that is opened up with > this global phenomenon of Internet becoming an important part of more and > more aspects of our social lives... > > It is fine to say that this is a consumer rights issue, and i agree with > Meryem that the real issue is that there should be enough alternative > software/ devices and interoperability should be ensured... But the point > is, who ensures that. Economically less powerful (developing) countries do > not have the muscle to regulate these unprecedentedly huge global digital > companies, and so they have to simply submit. The developed countries often > see strong economic interest in not disturbing the 'imperialist' designs of > these companies which are almost all based in these countries and bring > them a lot of economic benefits and sustaining advantage (the framework of > a new wave of neo-imperialism). > > Who then regulates these giant corporates, whose power now rivals that of > many states? There seem to be a clear and strong tendency, shared by much of > civil society in the developed world - IGC not being immune to it - that > Internet (and its digital ecosystem) should be left unregulated, mostly. At > least there seems to be no urgency to do anything about global Internet > policy arena. The fear of statist control on the Internet has become all > that ever counts in any discussion on global Internet governance/ > policy-making. (This has become almost a red-herring now.) This is > problematic for developing countries, and to the collective interests of the > people of these countries, (the right to development) which are in great > danger of losing out as the (non-level) digital playground is being set out, > without due regulation in global public interest. To get the right global > governance institutions and outcomes to address this vital issue, in my > opinion, is what should centrally constitute the 'development agenda in > IG'. > > I would consider it very inappropriate, and very inconsiderate, to compare > such real problems that developing counties increasingly face, and will face > in future to an even greater extent, like the non-availability of 'basic' > and enabling software like e-readers, with non-availability of Mexican food > in Geneva... It is even more inappropriate to speak of people of 'certain > persuasion' who in WTO arena oppose certain multinational invasion of > unprotected markets in developing countries, as being a sentiment and act in > opposition to raising the issues of necessary provision of basic enabling > software/ devices on fair and open standard terms to people of developing > countries. Our organization has joined protests on many WTO issues, but do > clearly sympathize with the present issue under consideration. They proceed > from very different logics, but have a convergence in the fact that (1) > global economy (and society) have to regulated in global public interest > , and (2) the interest of developing countries is often different from that > of developed countries. Appropriate global regulatory and governance systems > have to be built which take into account these differentials, without being > formulaic about it. That in my understanding constitutes the development > agenda in global forums. > > Many other examples of commercial digital services have been given - like > paypal etc - denial of which can have a very strong exclusionary effect of > people and groups... Exclusion has to be seen and addressed in its real, > felt forms and not by simplistic comparisons, which smack of insensitivity. > > Think of Microsoft suddenly refusing to give Windows related services to a > country (I know many would take it as a blessing, but there are strong issue > there still), or Skype not being available in a country which would cut its > residents off many a global tele-meetings (including civil society ones). > Or, Google, especially after it has all of us doing every second online > activity on its platform, cutting off its services to a country... this > surely isnt about Mexican food in Geneva. > > Parminder > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Bien sur! > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info ] > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:35 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example > of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism - > > > My English skills probably need improvement: > First of all, it's not about participating in *a* debate, but > participating in *the democratic debate* (this means, at least in > French, full democratic participation). > Second, it's about the "full exercize of democracy and of one's > fundamental rights", which means full democratic participation AND > full exercize of fundamental rights". To my knowledge, education/ > health/development are part of fundamental rights, aren't they? Meryem > > Le 26 nov. 09 à 19:03, Michael Gurstein a écrit : > > > > But opportunities to "participate in a debate" on something (e.g. > education/health/development) is rather narrower (and less significant > certainly) than an opportunity to actually have an > education/health/development, or have I missed something. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info ] > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:52 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: > [governance] Example > of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism - > > > Hi Mike, > > I thought this was covered by the "and one's fundamental rights" in > the second part of the sentence. By "full exercize of democracy" I > meant in this context participation in the democratic debate. > > Le 26 nov. 09 à 18:36, Michael Gurstein a écrit : > > > > Thanks Meryem, > > I agree with your reformulation of my rather awkward initial > formulation... > My one caveat (and here I'm again demonstrating my lack of > familiarity with > the "Rights" discourse) is that the statement "access to the > Internet as a > necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy" seems to > me rather > too narrow in that one could add/substitute > "development"/"health"/"education"/and so on for your terminology of > "democracy". > > Meryem: "I would rather state it differently: access to the > Internet as a > necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy and one's > fundamental right requires that there are accessible tools that > allow for or > facilitate the use of the Internet." > > Mike > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info ] > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet > Authoritarianism - > > > Hi all, > > I agree with Carlos and Bill here. Even beyond this discussion, it's > strange how often I've seen recently people - or organizations - > speaking of consumer rights as human rights (i.e. fundamental > rights). The > fact that there exist national, regional, international > legislation giving rights to consumers (w.r.t. to goods and services > providers) does certainly not mean that this is a fundamental right! > > Regarding Michael's interpretation that: "If access to the Internet > is a necessary requirement for participation in an "Information > Society" then access to the tools that allow for or facilitate the > use of the Internet especially when those tools are linked into some > sort of monopolistic position with respect to the use of the Internet > should surely fall under that rubric.", I would rather state it > differently: access to the Internet as a necessary requirement for > the full exercize of democracy and one's fundamental right requires > that there are accessible tools that allow for or facilitate the use > of the Internet". In other words, the requirement is not to access > tools provided in a monopolistic position, but that there should be > no monopolies, i.e. alternative tools should exist and be accessible, > allowing access to and production of information as well as full > participation. > > Going back to Fouad's initial example: the point is not that Amazon's > Kindle software for PC is not accessible in Pakistan (though it might > be an inconvenience for some), but rather that you couldn't read a > given book unless using Amazon's Kindle software for PC. Which is not > the case, apparently, since I can read the mentioned report (http://report.knightcomm.org/) through other means, e.g. with my browser, on > a MacIntosh, connected from Paris. > > Conclusion: it's a pure (and minor, I would say but this is a > personal opinion) consumer issue: someone wants to buy a product > which is not available in his/her country. See Bill's problem in > getting good Mexican food in Geneva, which those who know Bill would > qualify as a much more preoccupying problem;)) > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 26 nov. 09 à 14:30, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > > > > Wow, what a strange discussion. Let's contribute to it: how about > iTunes > or AppleTV only working in developed countries (one cannot purchase > media without having a credit card account in the USA or some other > developed country)? How about only now Sony introduces the PS2 > (PS2, an > obsolete gadget) in Brazil, and has no plans to introduce the PS3? > > I think the whole discussion is biased by a focus on being able to > consume (superfluous or not) stuff anywhere, whatever the big > companies > create to make us think we have to have it. > > --c.a. > > McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > On Nov 25, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > I think that Bill's casual dismissal of this issue is not > appropriate. > > > There's a difference between disagreeing with something and being > inappropriate. > > > The logic here is surely the same as the overall logic of a > "Right to the > Internet" (remembering that I claim no expertise in the domain > of discussion > around "Rights"... > > > Really? "Right to the Internet" is the same as declaring any > company that doesn't sell a product in a given country to be > "authoritarian."? Sorry, but this strikes me as fuzzy logic, and > not the computer science kind. > > It used to be that when a transnational firm entered a developing > country's market folks of certain persuasions would decry this as > imperialist etc. But now if a firm does not enter a market we > can also call them names normally associated with governments > that brutalize their populations to retain political power? > Maybe you should notify all the groups working against WTO > agreements etc that they have it backwards and are promoting > authoritarianism, whereas what they really should be doing is > demanding that every company everywhere be required to sell > everything everywhere else. > > Fouad says Amazon is authoritarian because it "dictates who buys > or isn't allowed to buy from its website;" presumably, this would > apply to other companies and distribution channels as well. > Let's leave aside the many reasons why a company might not serve > a given market---costs, level of effective demand, distribution, > local partner requirements, regulatory/policy uncertainty/ > unfavorability, the prospects of fraud (as Carlton notes), etc > etc---since I guess normal business considerations don't matter. > All that does by Fouad's standard is can I buy what I want, and > if not, they're equivalent with, say, the Burmese junta. > > I can't get real Mexican food at Geneva grocery stores. I > couldn't buy a Coke at the Sharm airport, only Pepsi. I can't > watch most US TV shows over the net in Switzerland. I can't see > most non-Hollywood US films, e.g. indies, at Geneva movie > theaters. But I want these things. So am I a victim of > authoritarianism? > > I'm sorry to hear that Kindle for PC is not currently available > in Pakistan. Perhaps it would make sense to actually find out > why this is so and see if anything can be done to encourage > change? Might be more productive than misplaced sloganeering. > > > +1 > > I knew if I waited long enough, someone would spend the time to > say this! > > BTW, Fouad, can you not use a proxy service? > > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From david.souter at runbox.com Tue Dec 1 09:48:38 2009 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:48:38 -0000 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <4B152197.5090202@paque.net> References: <4B112DE1.6070402@itforchange.net> <353FA42B-BCE3-4342-8330-D0BB43399B3B@ciroap.org> <4B152197.5090202@paque.net> Message-ID: <004b01ca7295$5e1ea280$1a5be780$@souter@runbox.com> Ginger: There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." Hi Jeremy, If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a working group with interested people from the list, and then post your suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. > > Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which > was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, > we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and > enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the > importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the > Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really > pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and > otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple > pie and kittens. > >> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >> of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >> within the IGF framework? > > This should have been in the IGC statement. > >> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. > > I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book > that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons > at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible > precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at > http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). I will > be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform > of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 1 11:24:16 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> References: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D79AB026D6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Let me nominate McTim, a.k.a. Tim McGinnis, as a candidate. I have not checked with him as to whether he will accept, but I think we need more "known quantities" in the candidate pool. ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:03 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Are there any other candidates for co-coordinator? Current candidate short bios can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/31/ Best, Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 11:32:49 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:32:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <004b01ca7295$5e1ea280$1a5be780$@souter@runbox.com> Message-ID: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open discussion in any case. M -----Original Message----- From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of Ginger: There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." Hi Jeremy, If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a working group with interested people from the list, and then post your suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. > > Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which > was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, > we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and > enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the > importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the > Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really > pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and > otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple > pie and kittens. > >> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >> of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >> within the IGF framework? > > This should have been in the IGC statement. > >> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. > > I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book > that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons > at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible > precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at > http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). I will > be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform > of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance !DSPAM:2676,4b152ce125624536733198! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 12:02:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:32:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> Message-ID: <4B154C2A.5010405@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 cls at rkey.com Tue Dec 1 13:24:45 2009 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:24:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B155F6D.70601@rkey.com> Ginger Paque wrote: > Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to > collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" > please make their interest known? --Please count me in. Craig Simon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 14:00:54 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:00:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912011100y679bd3ebq4195ef7d3769c5c0@mail.gmail.com> I would like to join in on this discussion regarding Jeremy's suggestion "to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF". Here are my ideas: -- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural model because its members coming from various Civil Society backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected through a possible survey and various models can be presented. -- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles and positions that cannot be dis-accounted. -- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not. I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no working group and then the coordinators putting together the suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before submitting them to the IGF secretariat. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: > > --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be > represented. > > --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. > > --A working group could be formed OR > > --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who > do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion. > > Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to > collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please > make their interest known? > > Best, Ginger > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... > > If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the > discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open > discussion in any case. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' > Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 15:29:12 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:29:12 -0200 Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> References: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <016601ca72c4$f2cbf610$d863e230$@com.br> Hi Ginger. I circulate around but not seen another good candidate. Good luck Best cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:03 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Are there any other candidates for co-coordinator? Current candidate short bios can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/31/ Best, Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Dec 1 15:46:23 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:46:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as being representative of civil society (David Souter's apt phraseology), any discussion regarding recommendations for the restructuring of the IGF emanating from this list will be of rather central importance to members of the list. Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this list rather than on a separate thread. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque wrote: >Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: > >--Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be represented. > >--The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. > >--A working group could be formed OR > >--A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that >those who do not want to take active part could still follow the >discussion. > >Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to >collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the >IGF" please make their interest known? > >Best, Ginger > >Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... >> >>If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the >>discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open >>discussion in any case. >> >>M >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Souter >>[mailto:david.souter at runbox.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; >>'Ginger Paque' >>Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >> >> >>Ginger: >> >>There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning >>structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I >>would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and >>reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards >>consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is >>particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition >>which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. >> >>I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a >>discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working >>group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask >>list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in >>participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working >>methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might >>it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of >>basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? >> >> >>Message sent by: >> >>David Souter >>Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >>Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University >>of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and >>Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International >>Institute for Sustainable Development >> >>145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >>(+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >>(+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >> >>"I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural >>reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." >> >>Hi Jeremy, >>If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a >>working group with interested people from the list, and then post your >>suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more >>efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. >> >>Best, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >>Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>>On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >>>>which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >>>>- CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >>>>from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >>>>have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >>>>making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >>>>towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >>>>of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. >>>> >>>> >>>Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which >>>was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, >>>we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and >>>enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the >>>importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the >>>Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really >>>pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and >>>otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple >>>pie and kittens. >>> >>> >>> >>>>We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >>>>of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >>>>as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >>>>advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >>>>plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >>>>,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >>>>of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >>>>achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >>>>some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >>>>manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >>>>within the IGF framework? >>>> >>>> >>>This should have been in the IGC statement. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >>>>changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >>>>negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >>>>the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >>>>members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >>>>need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >>>>co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book >>>that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons >>>at >>>http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, >>>and for a more digestible >>>precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at >>>http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). >>>I will >>>be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform >>>of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. >>> >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 15:58:27 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:58:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912011100y679bd3ebq4195ef7d3769c5c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> <701af9f70912011100y679bd3ebq4195ef7d3769c5c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912011258h26744742ue52145e68084318e@mail.gmail.com> Apology for using the term separate discussion list, it was originally intended to say as a separate discussion thread on the IGC list. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I would like to join in on this discussion regarding Jeremy's > suggestion "to collaborate on developing proposals for structural > reform of the IGF". > > Here are my ideas: > > -- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder > within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural > model because its members coming from various Civil Society > backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on > Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected > through a possible survey and various models can be presented. > > -- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or > possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of > the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part > of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles > and positions that cannot be dis-accounted. > > -- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should > start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions > for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post > their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together > in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded > to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because > involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders > will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not. > > I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no > working group and then the coordinators putting together the > suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before > submitting them to the IGF secretariat. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: >> >> --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be >> represented. >> >> --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. >> >> --A working group could be formed OR >> >> --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who >> do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion. >> >> Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to >> collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please >> make their interest known? >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >> I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... >> >> If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the >> discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open >> discussion in any case. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Dec 1 16:00:25 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 22:00:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of In-Reply-To: References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi I agree with George, David, et al. There's unquestionably a diversity of views across this community that should be aired on the list rather than in a working group. Best, Bill On Dec 1, 2009, at 9:46 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Ginger, > > It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as being representative of civil society (David Souter's apt phraseology), any discussion regarding recommendations for the restructuring of the IGF emanating from this list will be of rather central importance to members of the list. > > Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this list rather than on a separate thread. > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: >> >> --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be represented. >> >> --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. >> >> --A working group could be formed OR >> >> --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion. >> >> Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please make their interest known? >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... >>> >>> If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the >>> discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open >>> discussion in any case. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >>> >>> >>> Ginger: >>> >>> There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning >>> structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I >>> would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and >>> reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards >>> consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is >>> particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition >>> which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. >>> >>> I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a >>> discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working >>> group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask >>> list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in >>> participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working >>> methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might >>> it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of >>> basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? >>> >>> >>> Message sent by: >>> >>> David Souter >>> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >>> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University >>> of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and >>> Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International >>> Institute for Sustainable Development >>> >>> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >>> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >>> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >>> >>> "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural >>> reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." >>> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a >>> working group with interested people from the list, and then post your >>> suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more >>> efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >>>>> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >>>>> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >>>>> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >>>>> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >>>>> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >>>>> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >>>>> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. >>>>> >>>> Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which >>>> was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, >>>> we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and >>>> enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the >>>> importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the >>>> Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really >>>> pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and >>>> otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple >>>> pie and kittens. >>>> >>>> >>>>> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >>>>> of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >>>>> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >>>>> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >>>>> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >>>>> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >>>>> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >>>>> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >>>>> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >>>>> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >>>>> within the IGF framework? >>>>> >>>> This should have been in the IGC statement. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >>>>> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >>>>> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >>>>> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >>>>> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >>>>> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >>>>> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. >>>>> >>>> I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book >>>> that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons >>>> at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible >>>> precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at >>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). I will >>>> be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform >>>> of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 16:31:57 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:01:57 -0430 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC> <4B154C2A.5010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B158B4D.6050502@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 16:33:19 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:03:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] Fourth candidate for co-coordinator: McTim Message-ID: <4B158B9F.8020600@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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Dec 1 16:56:59 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:56:59 +1100 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4B158B4D.6050502@paque.net> Message-ID: Just to guide discussion here - This will be the fourth statement on IGF review from IGC in the last 12 months or so. The last one can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 I would suggest that we get the best intelligence we can on what is being proposed by other parties and the likely outcomes and changes which are being discussed. If our MAG members can assist with that, that would be great. I see little point in recycling our past statements again unless there are new possibilities and issues that we should address. What we probably need more is short sharp responses to specific proposals or potential changes. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Reply-To: , Ginger Paque Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:01:57 -0430 To: , George Sadowsky Cc: Ginger Paque , Michael Gurstein , 'David Souter' , Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF Hi everyone: As per member suggestions, I am starting a separate thread on this list with the Subject Line: Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF for the discussion Jeremy, David and others have suggested. George: by a separate thread, I just mean a specific Subject line to identify the discussion to those who are interested. This is it! I will repeat Fouad's first comments here. > Here are my ideas: > > -- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder > within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural > model because its members coming from various Civil Society > backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on > Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected > through a possible survey and various models can be presented. > > -- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or > possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of > the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part > of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles > and positions that cannot be dis-accounted. > > -- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should > start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions > for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post > their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together > in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded > to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because > involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders > will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not. > > I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no > working group and then the coordinators putting together the > suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before > submitting them to the IGF secretariat. George Sadowsky wrote: > Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Fu > Ginger, > > > > > It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as being > representative of civil society (David Souter's apt phraseology), any > discussion regarding recommendations for the restructuring of the IGF > emanating from this list will be of rather central importance to members of > the list. > > > > > Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this list rather > than on a separate thread. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > George > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: >> >> --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be >> represented. >> >> --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. >> >> --A working group could be formed OR >> >> --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who do >> not want to take active part could still follow the discussion. >> >> Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to >> collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please >> make their interest known? >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... >>> >>> If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the >>> discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open >>> discussion in any case. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com >>> ] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Ginger >>> Paque' >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >>> >>> >>> Ginger: >>> >>> There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning >>> structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I >>> would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and >>> reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards >>> consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is >>> particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition >>> which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. >>> >>> I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a >>> discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working >>> group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask >>> list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in >>> participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working >>> methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might >>> it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of >>> basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? >>> >>> >>> Message sent by: >>> >>> David Souter >>> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >>> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University >>> of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and >>> Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International >>> Institute for Sustainable Development >>> >>> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >>> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >>> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] >>> Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of >>> >>> "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural >>> reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." >>> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a >>> working group with interested people from the list, and then post your >> >>> suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more >>> efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - >>>>> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development >>>>> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue >>>>> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we >>>>> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against >>>>> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness >>>>> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose >>>>> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which >>>> was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, >>>> we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and >>>> enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the >>>> importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the >>>> Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really >>>> pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and >>>> otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple >>>> pie and kittens. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, >>>>> of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups >>>>> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging >>>>> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of >>>>> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model >>>>> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, >>>>> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be >>>>> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where >>>>> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound >>>>> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues >>>>> within the IGF framework? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> This should have been in the IGC statement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural >>>>> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the >>>>> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does >>>>> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its >>>>> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we >>>>> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the >>>>> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book >>>> that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons >>>> at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook >>>> , and for a more digestible >>>> precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at >>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf >>>> ). I will >>>> be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform >>>> of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Dec 1 17:10:35 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:10:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4B158B4D.6050502@paque.net> Message-ID: <701af9f70912011410g719e449bj9717b8754931f013@mail.gmail.com> A problem I've witnessed from this year's participation in MAG meetings is that we IGC representatives don't have much to represent during the MAG meetings because the only statements that come out of us are at the Open Consultations with the Stakeholders prior to the MAG meetings. When the MAG meetings are proceeding, we have more statements from networks such as APC and stances we reach agreements to over morning meetings prior to the meeting but no collective agenda with respect to the IGC and its stakeholders. This has to be first corrected within the IGC that we prepare our statements collectively together and are prepared for both Open Consultations and MAG meetings. That statements prepared after consensus agreed, we should then take this issues to the table. For example, this year the most important items were Human/Internet Rights and the Development Agenda. Frankly speaking we need such a mention in our statements that I also commented on in the main session on WSIS Principles this year in Sharam. We need the IGF secretariat to hear our continuous recommendation to change the title of main sessions now, it enough for 4 IGFs and now we should have the pressing issues in place that we as stakeholders of the multistakeholderism want to deliberate on. We need this change from within IGC to the IGF..........I hope you understand what I mean that 1. We have to be more organized and prepared with our joint statements for Open Consultations and MAG Meetings because IGC members are in both settings and the IGC needs should go through! 2. We have to get the IGF Secretariat to understand that its about time to have two main session changes to a. Human Rights in the age of Internet and b. Internet Governance Development Agenda IG4D Finally we need collective, inclusive, consensus on that we want to take the above forward from IGC and that each member in the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings will back this and we should have the backing statements and mutual agreement for the interventions and counter arguments. Jeremy, this is what I was discussing with you on our way back to Cairo from Sharam! On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just to guide discussion here - > > This will be the fourth statement on IGF review from IGC in the last 12 > months or so. The last one can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 > > I would suggest that we get the best intelligence we can on what is being > proposed by other parties and the likely outcomes and changes which are > being discussed. If our MAG members can assist with that, that would be > great. I see little point in recycling our past statements again unless > there are new possibilities and issues that we should address. What we > probably need more is short sharp responses to specific proposals or > potential changes. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque > Reply-To: , Ginger Paque > Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:01:57 -0430 > To: , George Sadowsky > > Cc: Ginger Paque , Michael Gurstein , > 'David Souter' , Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF > > Hi everyone: > As per member suggestions, I am starting a separate thread on this list with > the Subject Line: Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF for the discussion > Jeremy, David and others have suggested. George: by a separate thread, I > just mean a specific Subject line to identify the discussion to those who > are interested. This is it! > > I will repeat Fouad's first comments here. > >> Here are my ideas: >> >> -- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder >> within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural >> model because its members coming from various Civil Society >> backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on >> Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected >> through a possible survey and various models can be presented. >> >> -- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or >> possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of >> the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part >> of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles >> and positions that cannot be dis-accounted. >> >> -- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should >> start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions >> for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post >> their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together >> in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded >> to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because >> involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders >> will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not. >> >> I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no >> working group and then the coordinators putting together the >> suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before >> submitting them to the IGF secretariat. > > > George Sadowsky wrote: > >  Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Fu > Ginger, > > > > > It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as being > representative of civil society (David Souter's apt phraseology), any > discussion regarding recommendations for the restructuring of the IGF > emanating from this list will be of rather central importance to members of > the list. > > > > > Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this list rather > than on a separate thread. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > George > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that: > > --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be > represented. > > --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list. > > --A working group could be formed OR > > --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who > do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion. > > Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to > collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please > make their interest known? > > Best, Ginger > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion should take place on the list... > > If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the > discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open > discussion in any case. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com > ] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Ginger > Paque' > Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of > > > Ginger: > > There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning > structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible.  I > would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and > reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards > consensus rather than a contest between competing visions.  This is > particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition > which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF. > > I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a > discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list.  If a working > group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask > list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in > participating?  Those who are interested could then choose their own working > methods and individual roles.  Either way, all-list or working group, might > it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of > basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts? > > > Message sent by: > > David Souter > Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd > Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University > of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and > Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International > Institute for Sustainable Development > > 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD > (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) > (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of > > "I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural > reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators." > > Hi Jeremy, > If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a > working group with interested people from the list, and then post your > > suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more > efficient than undertaking it on the whole list. > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - > which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development > - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue > from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we > have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against > making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness > towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose > of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent. > > > > > Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which > was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, > we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and > enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the > importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the > Secretariat in its present form.  Well, its present form is really > pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and > otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple > pie and kittens. > > > > We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, > of  distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups > as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging > advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of > plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model > ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, > of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be > achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where > some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound > manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues > within the IGF framework? > > > > > This should have been in the IGC statement. > > > > Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural > changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the > negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does > the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its > members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we > need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the > co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks. > > > > > I agree.  I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book > that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons > at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook > , and for a more digestible > precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at >  http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf > ). I will > be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform > of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > ________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 shailam at yahoo.com Tue Dec 1 17:27:45 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D79AB026D6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D79AB026D6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <141602.12019.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi All  I too feel that we should have more candidates in the pool. Can anyone nominate others or yourselves? It seems like everyone is being very polite and dilpomatic. Shaila Rao Mistry   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!    ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Ginger Paque Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 8:24:16 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Let me nominate McTim, a.k.a. Tim McGinnis, as a candidate. I have not checked with him as to whether he will accept, but I think we need more “known quantities” in the candidate pool.   ________________________________ From:Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:03 AM To: ' governance at lists.cpsr.org ' Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates   Are there any other candidates for co-coordinator? Current candidate short bios can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/31/ Best, Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 17:40:49 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:49 -0430 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF Message-ID: <4B159B71.2080107@gmail.com> Fearghas pointed out that I did not really start a new thread earlier: I just changed the subject line. To make this appear in the archive as a new thread, I have started a "real" new thread here for the discussion, and copied Ian's and Fouad's latest posts below. Sorry for the confusion. gp Fouad Bajwa said: A problem I've witnessed from this year's participation in MAG meetings is that we IGC representatives don't have much to represent during the MAG meetings because the only statements that come out of us are at the Open Consultations with the Stakeholders prior to the MAG meetings. When the MAG meetings are proceeding, we have more statements from networks such as APC and stances we reach agreements to over morning meetings prior to the meeting but no collective agenda with respect to the IGC and its stakeholders. This has to be first corrected within the IGC that we prepare our statements collectively together and are prepared for both Open Consultations and MAG meetings. That statements prepared after consensus agreed, we should then take this issues to the table. For example, this year the most important items were Human/Internet Rights and the Development Agenda. Frankly speaking we need such a mention in our statements that I also commented on in the main session on WSIS Principles this year in Sharam. We need the IGF secretariat to hear our continuous recommendation to change the title of main sessions now, it enough for 4 IGFs and now we should have the pressing issues in place that we as stakeholders of the multistakeholderism want to deliberate on. We need this change from within IGC to the IGF..........I hope you understand what I mean that 1. We have to be more organized and prepared with our joint statements for Open Consultations and MAG Meetings because IGC members are in both settings and the IGC needs should go through! 2. We have to get the IGF Secretariat to understand that its about time to have two main session changes to a. Human Rights in the age of Internet and b. Internet Governance Development Agenda IG4D Finally we need collective, inclusive, consensus on that we want to take the above forward from IGC and that each member in the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings will back this and we should have the backing statements and mutual agreement for the interventions and counter arguments. Jeremy, this is what I was discussing with you on our way back to Cairo from Sharam! On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just to guide discussion here - > > This will be the fourth statement on IGF review from IGC in the last 12 > months or so. The last one can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 > > I would suggest that we get the best intelligence we can on what is being > proposed by other parties and the likely outcomes and changes which are > being discussed. If our MAG members can assist with that, that would be > great. I see little point in recycling our past statements again unless > there are new possibilities and issues that we should address. What we > probably need more is short sharp responses to specific proposals or > potential changes. > > Ian Peter > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 2 04:36:54 2009 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:36:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <141602.12019.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4B152205.8070202@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D79AB026D6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <141602.12019.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <554138.237.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear All, If I have the voting power, I nominate Fouad Bajwa (for Co-coordinator candidates). Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: shaila mistry To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller ; Ginger Paque Sent: Wed, 2 December, 2009 3:27:45 Subject: Re: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Hi All  I too feel that we should have more candidates in the pool. Can anyone nominate others or yourselves? It seems like everyone is being very polite and dilpomatic. Shaila Rao Mistry   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!    ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Ginger Paque Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 8:24:16 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Let me nominate McTim, a.k.a. Tim McGinnis, as a candidate. I have not checked with him as to whether he will accept, but I think we need more “known quantities” in the candidate pool.   ________________________________ From:Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:03 AM To: ' governance at lists.cpsr.org ' Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates   Are there any other candidates for co-coordinator? Current candidate short bios can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/31/ Best, Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 2 05:30:28 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:30:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4B159B71.2080107@gmail.com> References: <4B159B71.2080107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <47EC06D2-D6F6-48F6-A98C-5EDAC421EC81@ciroap.org> On 02/12/2009, at 6:40 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Fearghas pointed out that I did not really start a new thread > earlier: I just changed the subject line. To make this appear in the > archive as a new thread, I have started a "real" new thread here for > the discussion, and copied Ian's and Fouad's latest posts below. > Sorry for the confusion. gp David Souter suggested narrowing down the options around a series of basic questions covering "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts. Here are twenty questions, with my answers - coded I for ideal, P for pragmatic (well, my view of pragmatic), and C for current. To save space and aid clarity, I am not including the reasons for my answers, but can follow up with this later. To include your answers, delete mine and use the same codes I and P (you can omit C which is simply for information). Everyone's answers can be compiled and we can then determine what kind of rough consensus we already have, with a view to settling on text in those areas - whilst exploring through discussion the scope of widening the initial consensus into other areas. If anyone thinks it's worthwhile, these questions could also be put online in survey form. 1. Is the Secretariat provided by the United Nations? I: No P: Yes C: Yes 2. To whom is the Secretariat directly accountable? I: The MAG P: The MAG C: The UNSG 3. How is the MAG (by whatever name) selected? I: By the stakeholders (directly) P: By a randomly-selected multi-stakeholder nominating committee C: By the Secretariat 4. How is the MAG composed? I: By equal numbers from each stakeholder group P: By more equal numbers from each stakeholder group C: Dominated by governments and the technical community 5. Whom do the MAG members represent? I: Their stakeholder groups P: Their stakeholder groups C: Themselves or their employers 6. By whom should the MAG be chaired? I: Two of its own appointees, rotating between the stakeholder groups P: Its own appointee/s, rotating between the stakeholder groups C: The Secretariat 7. How should the MAG make decisions? I: By consensus between individuals P: By consensus between stakeholder groups C: By consensus between individuals 8. What should be the transparency of MAG deliberations? I: Public mailing list, recordings and/or transcripts of discussions P: Private and public mailing lists, anonymised transcripts C: Chatham House rules, edited summaries of discussions 9. Who is responsible for determining the IGF's structure and processes? I: The open consultation meeting P: The MAG C: The Secretariat 10. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) briefing documents? I: The MAG P: The MAG, drawing on work of the Dynamic Coalitions (but see 15 below) C: The Secretariat 11. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) written outputs? I: The MAG P: The MAG, drawing on work of the Dynamic Coalitions (but see 15 below) C: The Secretariat 12. How can such outputs be expressed in a case where a consensus exists? I: Recommendations, declarations, statements, etc P: Recommendations, declarations, statements, etc C: Chairman's summary of the meeting 13. How is intersessional preparatory work of the IGF to be performed? I: By the IGF at large using online tools and intersessional meetings P: By the dynamic coalitions (and/or new thematic working groups) C: Not applicable 14. How are outputs of the dynamic coalitions or working groups transmitted? I: By their chairs to the IGF upon reaching an internal consensus P: By their chairs to the IGF upon reaching an internal consensus C: Not applicable 15. What criteria apply to the recognition of these groups? I: Open, multi-stakeholder, democratic process, one group per issue P: Open, multi-stakeholder, and democratic process C: None 16. Who is responsible for assessing the consensus of the IGF at large? I: The MAG P: The MAG C: Not applicable 17. What working processes are used to promote such consensus? I: Small group moderated democratic deliberation P: Roundtables (with online participation) C: Freeform discussion 18. How are outputs of the IGF transmitted to external institutions? I: By the MAG P: By the MAG and the media C: Not applicable 19. How is the agenda for the IGF set? I: By the stakeholders in open consultation meetings P: By the MAG, drawing on open consultation meetings C: By the MAG 20. How are workshops selected? I: By inviting participants for topics pre-determined during agenda setting P: By the MAG selecting from proposals, but eliminating overlap C: By the MAG selecting from proposals, allowing overlap -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 06:47:25 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:17:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] New candidate for co-coordinator: Jeremy Malcolm Message-ID: <4B1653CD.4080009@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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 10:44:37 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:44:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Broadband Internet Should Be a Global Public Good,Says ECLAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> Another (even stronger?) approach to Internet as a right... M Broadband Internet Should Be a Global Public Good, Says ECLAC The Executive Secretary of the Commission, Alicia Bárcena, participated in the XIX Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government and the V Ibero-American Business Meeting in Portugal. http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/4/ 37974/P37974.xml &xsl=/prensa/tpl-i/p6f.xsl&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 11:31:57 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:31:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Message-ID: <389A85FBF7F54645BF8464557D393509@userPC> Something for the IGC to address... A bit of a warning re: a privatized infrastructure for the critical elements of an Information Society especially as things are being pushed "into the cloud" at an alarming rate. So what happens when, banking, government, retail, education, health, telecommunications etc.etc. are all effectively on the Internet/cloud including their transactions, information flow and records and the Internet goes down as below... and your friendly local privatized service provider (whose ownership is buried under a dozen layers of tax shelter dummied corporations ultimately housed in a post office box in the Caymans), and their outsourced help desk doesn't/won't answer even if you can find an operating (non-Internet based) phone ... Or have I missed something. Hmmmm.... M -----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farbe i r.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:10 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure On 12/1/09 2:54 AM, "Matt Larsen - Lists" wrote: Some kind of combination of failure between Charter and Qwest has left tens of thousands of people in Nebraska without Internet and has disrupted the Internet and phone services for thousands more. Right now, the outage is going on 12 hours and there is no ETA for repair in sight. The word coming down is that the outage is on a Qwest fiber, but it looks to me like both parties should be on the hot seat for not having the ability to route around the problem. There was a four hour outage on Charter a week ago that was caused by a fiber cut in Gothenburg, Nebraska. That one killed everything west of the cut, but it was small potatoes compared to this one. Is this truly the level of performance that we can expect from our major Internet backbone providers? It took me about 10 seconds to re-route my traffic to a backup provider - you would think that a couple of multimillion dollar companies would be able to sort out a problem of this nature in a reasonable amount of time. The small CLEC that I use for my backup connection had enough capacity to route around the problem and was even able to lend me a little bit after 5pm when the traffic on their network (mostly businesses) dropped off. It isn't rocket science to figure out how to route around an outage. Almost as frustrating is that there was NO news about the outages anywhere except on the social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter). One TV station in Hastings, NE put up a short story on their website, but I got more news from the tweets and FB posts that people where posting from their cell phones than I did from anywhere else. None of the network outage sites have any news about this. Could this be a harbinger of things to come? I am feeling pretty thankful right now that I have a choice in backbone providers and that I kept a second one. Diversity is a good thing, and this is a great example of why we need competition and multiple options for Internet. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Archives !DSPAM:2676,4b1597ab25621176811185! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 12:13:55 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:13:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <141602.12019.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <628529.98477.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Apathy is generally due to a lack of respect for the issue or position presented.  If people thought these were important positions they would be active in the pursuit of good people.   I have yet to see a "candidate" make any mention of their views as to how and why we should act.  I have seen resume' notches and plaques on walls but absolutely no conviction or passion for a position.  The selection seems to be in line with the general theory of not making waves or progress and for damn sure not interrupting the "charitable" flow of funding by groups members are beholding too. --- On Tue, 12/1/09, shaila mistry wrote: From: shaila mistry Subject: Re: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 10:27 PM Hi All  I too feel that we should have more candidates in the pool. Can anyone nominate others or yourselves? It seems like everyone is being very polite and dilpomatic. Shaila Rao Mistry   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!    From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Ginger Paque Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 8:24:16 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates Let me nominate McTim, a.k.a. Tim McGinnis, as a candidate. I have not checked with him as to whether he will accept, but I think we need more “known quantities” in the candidate pool.   From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:03 AM To: ' governance at lists.cpsr.org ' Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates   Are there any other candidates for co-coordinator? Current candidate short bios can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/31/ Best, Ginger -----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 Wed Dec 2 12:27:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:27:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF Message-ID: <661885.78911.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Can someone elaborate on this concept.  Ginger posted  it from George.   Who is the leader/head/elected director of the IGC?   Who is the leader/head/elected director of the IGF?   Who is held accountable for these two?  Who speaks for them?     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 12:31:30 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:31:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Last call for Co-coordinator candidates In-Reply-To: <628529.98477.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <141602.12019.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <628529.98477.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric, as usual, you type before you think. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Apathy is generally due to a lack of respect for the issue or position > presented. > We now have 4 (at least) people who are willing to act as co-coordinators. IIRC this is more than at any other time we have chosen people for this role. > If people thought these were important positions they would be active in > the pursuit of good people. > A number of people have approached me in the last week asking me if I would serve. So people ARE actively pursuing those who they think will be good in this role. > > I have yet to see a "candidate" make any mention of their views as to how > and why we should act. > Probably because leading the caucus towards pursuit of their goal is NOT what the coordinators are supposed to do. Please reread the charter: *"Duties of Coordinators* The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below. The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such as list management, web site management or support of other tools. These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be appealed to the appeals team." > I have seen resume' notches and plaques on walls but absolutely no > conviction or passion for a position. The selection seems to be in line > with the general theory of not making waves or progress and for damn sure > not interrupting the "charitable" flow of funding by groups members are > beholding too. > I don't think any of the candidates are "beholden" to any organisation in terms of IGC work. 2 of us are independent consultants, one is a PhD candidate, and one works for a telecoms regulator. What we have in common is our passion for IG issues. The only plaque on my wall is a glow in the dark flying disc from my old Ultimate Frisbee team in Amsterdam. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 13:06:03 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:06:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [ciresearchers] FW: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Message-ID: <652462675FE84FB48461BAE97853DDF3@userPC> Before I get slammed by folks with a lot more technical knowledge than myself (the Internet is "pipes" etc.etc.) here below is a longish technical discussion on the email I sent from a colleague working in providing Internet service (and associated e-services) to indigenous communities in remote Northern Ontario... Worth taking a look at also in the context of the Internet for All/Right to the Internet discussion.... M -----Original Message----- From: Adi Linden [mailto:adilinden at knet.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:55 AM To: brian.beaton at knet.ca Cc: 'Michael Gurstein'; 'O'Donnell, Susan'; 'Adam Fiser'; jeanniecarpenter at knet.ca; 'Penny Carpenter'; terenceburnard at knet.ca; jamieray at knet.ca Subject: Re: [ciresearchers] FW: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Let's see... Sioux Lookout is at the end of a spur. The fiber extends from Dinorwic (or even Wabigoon) along Hwy 72 to Sioux Lookout. That single fiber bundle on the poles beside the highway carries all internet data for the two largest commercial internet service providers (Bell DSL and Shaw Cable) as well as all wireline long distance calls and a good portion of cellular calls. There are a few alternatives, as the local school board has their own independent wireless backhaul to Dryden. Then there is TBayTel who has their own backhaul to Thunder Bay for cellular voice and a limited amount of data. Even though these alternative routes exist, they have nowhere near the capacity to replace the Bell fiber in the event of a fiber cut. A very different scenario that happened a while back, there was a fiber cut near Thunder Bay. It disrupted the Bells network connectivity between Thunder Bay and Sudbury. As a result it took out many of the K-Net circuits, but also affected telephone service and long distance as well as internet service throughout the region. Even though alternate fiber paths exist, the ATM technology within Bells core seems to be statically configured. So paths are build through the ATM cloud for each circuit. When a major event like this occurs, there are no automatic failovers in place. Now my understanding of ATM and routing is that alternate routes and automatic best route selection is well within the possibilities of that technology, for whatever reasons this is not done. So when this fiber cut occurred, Bell eventually agreed to reroute circuits, a manual process. But due to the sheer number of circuits involved (not just K-Net and some higher priority issues such as wireline phone, 911, etc) the fiber cut was repaired before any K-Net circuits saw an alternate route. This outage did last many hours. I think part of the redundancy / alternate path issue is the cost of running fiber. Either you have provider building backhaul to suit their needs only, or you have a provider building a single huge capacity link. Neither is the solution. The provider building for specific purpose only will not be in a position to handle someone elses traffic. They will not have the capacity, nor will they have the interconnect and peering arrangements to offer any alternate paths to 3rd parties on short notice. The provider building with resale in mind causes everyone to flock to the single link available. So you may have several service providers offering service, facilitating local peering, doing all the things that make the internet a self healing network. Yet they all share the same bundle of fiber strung along the same pipeline, railroad bed or highway corridor. So a fiber cut results in everyone going out at the same time still. But with many regions way underserved as it is, how do you prioritize? I think providing a non-redundant service in unserved regions takes priority over building redundancy. Providing people living in remote areas with equitable access in terms of cost and quality should be a priority. Keep in mind that building out these networks, all these spurs will eventually be connected. That in itself will create a mesh and with it redundancy. Adi Brian Beaton wrote: > Michael . interesting post and welcome to our world of > "end-of-the-line > spurs" without any redundancy available . this telecom pot needs to be a > lot deeper to deliver essential services . > > > > Sure sounds like a great plot for the continued growth in urbanization > and being taken care of within concrete ghettos . > > > > Lots of spins on this story . > > > > Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator > Keewaytinook Okimakanak > Box 1439, 115 King Street > Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9 > T: 807-737-1135 x1251 > F: 807-737-1720 > IP and ISDN video conferencing > E: brianbeaton at knet.ca > W: http://knet.ca > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > *From:* ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net > [mailto:ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] *On Behalf Of > *Michael Gurstein > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:30 AM > *To:* ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; 'CRACIN Canada discussion'; > ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca > *Subject:* [ciresearchers] FW: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical > Infrastructure > > > > A bit of a warning re: a privatized infrastructure for the critical > elements of an Information Society especially as things are being pushed > "into the cloud" at an alarming rate. > > > > So what happens when, banking, government, retail, education, health, > telecommunications etc.etc. are all effectively on the Internet/cloud > including their transactions, information flow and records and the > Internet goes down as below... and your friendly local privatized > service provider (whose ownership is buried under a dozen layers of tax > shelter dummied corporations ultimately housed in a post office box in > the Caymans), and their outsourced help desk doesn't/won't answer even > if you can find an operating (non-Internet based) phone ... > > > > Or have I missed something. > > > > Hmmmm.... > > > > M > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farbe i r.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:10 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > On 12/1/09 2:54 AM, "Matt Larsen - Lists" > wrote: > > Some kind of combination of failure between Charter and Qwest has left > tens of thousands of people in Nebraska without Internet and has > disrupted the Internet and phone services for thousands more. Right > now, the outage is going on 12 hours and there is no ETA for repair in > sight. > > The word coming down is that the outage is on a Qwest fiber, but it > looks to me like both parties should be on the hot seat for not having > the ability to route around the problem. There was a four hour outage > on Charter a week ago that was caused by a fiber cut in Gothenburg, > Nebraska. That one killed everything west of the cut, but it was small > potatoes > compared to this one. Is this truly the level of performance that we > can expect from our major Internet backbone providers? It took me > about 10 seconds to re-route my traffic to a backup provider - you > would think that a couple of multimillion dollar companies would be able to > sort out a problem of this nature in a reasonable amount of time. The > small CLEC that I use for my backup connection had enough capacity to > route around the problem and was even able to lend me a little bit > after 5pm when the traffic on their network (mostly businesses) > dropped off. It isn't rocket science to figure out how to route around > an outage. > > Almost as frustrating is that there was NO news about the outages > anywhere except on the social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter). > One TV station in Hastings, NE put up a short story on their website, > but I got more news from the tweets and FB posts that people where > posting from their cell phones than I did from anywhere else. None of > the network outage sites have any news about this. > > Could this be a harbinger of things to come? I am feeling pretty > thankful right now that I have a choice in backbone providers and that I > kept a second one. Diversity is a good thing, and this is a great > example of why we need competition and multiple options for Internet. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > Archives > > > > > [Powered by Listbox] > > !DSPAM:2676,4b1597ab25621176811185! > -- Adi Linden Keewaytinook Okimakanak / K-Net Services Box 1439, 115 King Street Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9 Phone: 807-737-1135 ext 1257 Fax: 807-737-1720 adilinden at knet.ca ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 14:08:28 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:38:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator nominations close at midnight today GMT Message-ID: <4B16BB2C.2020002@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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 2 15:42:04 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:42:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D79EFB7A0D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> [http://internetgovernance.org/images/IGP_logo_Masthead2.gif] December 02, 2009 The ICANN Independent Review Process: complete the trial before modifying it IGP provides leadership, expertise and analysis at 2009 IGF "It could be the end of multistakeholderism" The IGF and the Internet Society-ITU rivalry ICANN, Inc.: Accountability and participation in the governance of critical Internet resources Chinese takedown, all notice at IGF Abbreviated Guide to the Economics and Politics of DNSSEC "Crypto-nationalism" and competition in secure DNS Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ________________________________ The ICANN Independent Review Process: complete the trial before modifying it The law firm representing ICM Registry in its pioneering Independent Review of the ICANN decision on the .xxx top level domain has issued a call for ICANN to wait until the process is concluded and the community can assess the results before making any changes to the Independent Review Process (IRP). We think that is a reasonable request. Changing the IRP before one can take into account the only experience we have with it is like modifying the design of an airplane before it has gone on its first test flight. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * IGP provides leadership, expertise and analysis at 2009 IGF IGP Scientific Committee members were prominent in all phases of this year's Internet Governance Forum meeting in Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt. The IGP brought expertise in political science, economics, sociology and other disciples to bear on discussions ranging from cyber security and critical Internet resources to institutional governance. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * "It could be the end of multistakeholderism" The gem above, heard over lunch at IGF Egypt, illustrates the apparently tenuous ground upon which some feel the IGF now stands. But to understand why there was so much concern one needs to sort out the issues at play. First, there is the issue of who will conduct the formal review of the IGF. The review will be the basis for any decision to continue the forum under the aegis of the UN and in what format (including any outputs). Second, there is the issue of where financial support for the forum will come from going forward. That these issues are being tussled over within the UN bureaucracy importantly illustrates the soft power that the IGF has accumulated within Internet governance. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * The IGF and the Internet Society-ITU rivalry This year's IGF was characterized by intensified rivalry between the backers of the Internet Society/ICANN and the supporters of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which would like to contest the former's hegemony over Internet names and number governance. Many workshops and main sessions of the Forum get sucked into this polarity one way or the other, especially if they discuss critical internet resources. Talk to the ISOC/ICANN supporters and one will get the impression they are engaged in a fight for their life. I am skeptical of this. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * ICANN, Inc.: Accountability and participation in the governance of critical Internet resources IGP releases today a new paper assessing the relationship between public participation and accountability in ICANN. It explains how ICANN has responded to accountability concerns by creating new opportunities for public comment, review, and participation. Is public participation an adequate means of making this global Internet governance organization accountable to the public? ICANN is fundamentally a private corporation. Private corporations are held accountable in three ways: 1) directly through their membership or shareholders, 2) through competition, which gives the public the opportunity to avoid their products or services, and 3) through external regulation or supervision by judicial or public authorities. None of these forms of accountability apply to ICANN. Instead, the public is given a wide range of opportunities to participate in ICANN's processes and to voice their opinions. This paper questions whether participation is an adequate substitute for accountability. It analyzes three distinct reforms in ICANN's history to show how participation can displace accountability rather than improve it. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * Chinese takedown, all notice at IGF The problem with linking inter-governmental organizations and Internet governance were on display today, the very first day of the Egypt Internet Governance Forum. The Open Network Initiative (ONI) planned a reception to launch its new edited collection book, Access Controlled. Outside the room a banner with the book cover graphics and your standard promotional blurb was on display. The blurb mentioned "the great Chinese firewall." Apparently a representative of the Chinese government complained and someone from the UN or the government of Egypt brought in security and (after about 15 minutes of bizarre discussions) insisted that the banner be taken away. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * Abbreviated Guide to the Economics and Politics of DNSSEC WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The following federal contracts were announced by federal agencies as having been awarded to companies operating in Maryland. *** MILITARY $4.1 Million Federal Contract Awarded to Shinkuro Inc. WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -- Shinkuro Inc., Bethesda, Md., won a $4,103,348 federal contract from the U.S. Air Force Materiel Command, Rome, N.Y., for the Domain Name System Security Protocol (DNSSEC) deployment. [Founder and CEO of Shinkuro, Inc. is ICANN Board member and SSAC chair Steve Crocker] * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * "Crypto-nationalism" and competition in secure DNS The public forum at the recent ICANN-Seoul meeting included an exchange between IGP's Milton Mueller and ICANN Board member Steve Crocker concerning cryptographic algorithms used in DNSSEC and the requirement in ICANN's new gTLD application to deploy DNSSEC. Both raised points which bear repeating and further elaboration of the underlying competition issues that comes with signing the root. * Email to a friend * Article Search * [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] * ________________________________ Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe [http://www.feedblitz.com/logos/3012894/175425/11399627/logo.gif] ________________________________ ________________________________ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Dec 3 12:05:28 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:05:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: *respites note* re Breaking Blogcasts: - Communications comments weign in on G.E. sale of NBC TV to Comcast. In-Reply-To: <22604690.1259859496333.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <22604690.1259859496333.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050912030905w4d6c22b6w2f720e94cb92c4b2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeff, thanks for coming in on this; I feel sure all here will be appreciative. On one dimension or another issues of *diversity*, or not, tend to emerge in communication contexts - i.e. what's in a network? - and with your support of *Respectful Interfaces* (and more!) at large - your contributions are much appreciated. And nicely "scholarshiped" as well as philosophical. With warm regards, Linda M F. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Linda, > > > > Of course the FCC and the FTC will have to weigh in on this as to > wheather this sale is > > in the best interest of the public. Folks should direct their comments to > those two > > USG departments in this regard. > > > > My own opinion in general and briefly stated is that this sale to Comcast > is a very bad > > idea as it narrows competition in certain media spaces that broadcast media > is already > > lacking and that Comcast IMHO has largely been a Bad Actor in the IT sector > as well > > as the Cable broadcasting industry. Good governance has not been evident > enough > > in respec to how the FCC in particular has delt with Comcasts recent > attempts to > > selectively but broadly so, censor it's own users and other pass through > traffic from > > in particular P2P traffic. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: linda misek-falkoff > Sent: Dec 3, 2009 9:22 AM > To: cccun at yahoogroups.com > Cc: 2009-cccun-board at yahoogroups.com, General Secretary , "Jeffrey A. > Williams" , respectful.interfaces at gmail.com > Subject: *respites note* re Breaking Blogcasts: - Communications comments > weign in on G.E. sale of NBC TV to Comcast. > > *----- respectful interfaces e-note 120309 -----* > > Dear Colleagues who note networks features, negotiations and altering * > interfaces*, > > The Internet links to this material appears flush left on the next two > lines in this post. First is the main article, next is Blog viewer > commentary. > > > > http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/ge-agrees-to-sell-nbc-to-comcast/?scp=6&sq=comcast&st=cse > > > http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04nbc.html > > So we witness that Internet Bloggers are already weighing in on this "the > other real world" acquisition. > > In the sense that all language is metaphor (virtual and made up of > approximations for thoughts, feelings, and observations) *cyberspace* is > closely monitoring / shadowing *media space at large* and appears to be > competing as to what is labeled "breaking news." > > Posted for interest in communications happenings, > With best wishes and interest of course in comments currently, > Linda M F. > > -- > LDMF. > > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > > 914 769 3652 > > law / computing / humanities: > > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > > Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the > > U.N.; > > World Education Fellowship; > > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > > National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus; > > Persons with Pain Intl.; > > ICT multiple decades; > > Other affiliations on Request. > > > > n.b.: > > > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > > about leadership interning). > > > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the > CCC/UN. > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 3 12:53:56 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:53:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy Message-ID: I had a chance to listen to this Interview, and felt that you could apply the same aspects to Internet Democracy. [e.g.: Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine *Internet* Democracy] - Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy Author Janine Wedel Publisher Basic Books, 2009 ISBN 0465091067, 9780465091065 Length 304 pages http://books.google.com/books?id=FxN7AAAACAAJ&dq=Shadow+Elite+power+democracy - KPFA.org The Morning Show: (skip to the secound hour) The Morning Show discusses the Surge in Afghanistan with Norman Solomon, Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Then the November edition of Poor New Network. * In the second hour a conversation with Janine Wedel, author of “Shadow Elite: How The World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and the Free Market”. Wrapping up the program Brian Edwards Tiekert remembers Seattle after ten years. * The Morning Show, for November 30, 2009 - 7:00am http://kpfa.org/archive/id/56559 Download: http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20091130-Mon0700.mp3 Link: http://kpfa.org/archive/id/56559 Embed:
The Morning Show - November 30, 2009 at 7:00am

Click to listen (or download)
--- -30-____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Thu Dec 3 06:57:55 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:57:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Broadband Internet Should Be a Global Public In-Reply-To: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> References: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> Message-ID: <20091203190519.A600B920A2@npogroups.org> You are very right. It has become a pre-requisite for a nation to be digitally compatible with external world. Best regards, Hakik At 03:44 PM 12/2/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Another (even stronger?) approach to Internet as a right... > >M >Broadband Internet Should Be a Global Public Good, Says ECLAC >The Executive Secretary of the Commission, >Alicia Bárcena, participated in the XIX >Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and >Government and the V Ibero-American Business Meeting in Portugal. >http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/4/37974/P37974.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl-i/p6f.xsl&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl# > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Dec 3 14:28:21 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:58:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator nominations closed: update on elections Message-ID: <4B181155.8000603@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 3 16:48:27 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:48:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 References: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> <20091203190520.D052F92158@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87198A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Dec 3 18:01:22 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:01:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google Accelerates Internet With Public DNS Service Message-ID: Google Accelerates Internet With Public DNS Service By Thomas Claburn InformationWeek | December 3, 2009 Art.Ref.: http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/web_services/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222000551 Print: http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=EXQ2Q3HMRA1RFQE1GHOSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=222000551 - By taking on Internet traffic direction, Google aims to make the Internet more responsive while also deepening its access to valuable traffic data. Opening up a potentially vast source of business intelligence, Google (NSDQ: GOOG) on Thursday introduced a public Domain Name Service (DNS) resolver, a service that allows Internet users to rely on Google rather than their ISP to take them to the Web sites they wish to visit. ... continued --- -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 3 21:19:07 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:19:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term Message-ID: Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I disappear into the sunset. Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co coordinator tasks. What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying involved in a more minor way. And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Thu Dec 3 23:11:24 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 22:11:24 -0600 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Ian. We met briefly in Sharm but glad to have met you in person. At least now I can "place" a face to the person I do communicate here in the caucus. Good luck to your own endeavors and to the candidates. :) Regards, Charity Gamboa Embley On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the > election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too > willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, > competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent > support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Charity Gamboa-Embley Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 +1 (806) 744 0330 http://www.stdsapi.com/ cembley at esc17.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Dec 4 08:43:06 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:43:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 Message-ID: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> Thanks Wolfgang but I couldn't open the link to the strategic plan. Concerning ICANN's "successful participation" to the ITU Plenipo there are imho only two possibilities - the ICANN is a sector member of the ITU - ICANN is officially invited by the ITU (SG and/or Council) Let's wait for further information and  more precise reasons on the meaning of this probably "non event" Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 03/12/09 22:53 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 > > > I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) > > wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ziaul75 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 4 09:03:05 2009 From: ziaul75 at yahoo.com (Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:03:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> References: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> Message-ID: <495127.64088.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KleinwächterWolfgang Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 7:43:06 PM Subject: re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 Thanks Wolfgang but I couldn't open the link to the strategic plan. Concerning ICANN's "successful participation" to the ITU Plenipo there are imho only two possibilities - the ICANN is a sector member of the ITU - ICANN is officially invited by the ITU (SG and/or Council) Let's wait for further information and more precise reasons on the meaning of this probably "non event" Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 03/12/09 22:53 >> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" >> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Copie à : >> Objet : [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 >> >> >> I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf >> >> BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) >> >> wolfgang >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 212430 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From graciela at nupef.org.br Fri Dec 4 09:06:25 2009 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:06:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B191761.8020809@nupef.org.br> Ian, Thanks so much for your dedication, sensibleness and wisdom. You've been an excellent co coordinator, with a lucid vision and effective actions. I also wish the very best for the next person in this position. regards, Graciela Ian Peter escreveu: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Dec 4 09:40:38 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:40:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Predictions for DNS 2010: Google ISP DNS vs. Microsoft OpenDNS Message-ID: Predictions for DNS 2010 by Allen Stern on December 3rd, 2009 Art.Ref.: http://www.centernetworks.com/predictions-for-google-dns-2010 This morning Google announced the launch of Google DNS. Most of the early posts I read didn’t mention that this is a great way for Google to know EVERYTHING that you do online. Back in 2007, James Thomas attempted to use the Web without ever touching a Google service. He was able to do it for a short bit but eventually gave in. In late 2007, I took a look at just how much Google knew about you. Last year I updated the post to note that Google even knows where I am. What Google DNS will do is basically sit between your computer and the computer you want to reach. When we type in “moo.com”, a computer has to translate that to computer-speak and then send us on our way to the computer that holds the moo.com files. This middle-man computer is called a DNS 0r domain name server. Google says they can do DNS faster than anyone else and that since we all want to load webpages very fast, people will want to switch. Jesse Stay says that DNS will become the new browser war and compares today’s announcement to the fight between Netscape and Microsoft. Steve Rubel says that the Google DNS is all about ads. You might be wondering why Steve says that this is an ad-play. It’s simple. Using my example above with moo.com, let’s say you accidentally type in “moopiet29595.com”. Since there is no website at that address, the DNS server is lost out there in cyberspace. When that happens, most DNS servers will reroute you to a page that typically is a search page with search results that match the name you typed in plus ads. OpenDNS, the popular DNS service, has a post that discusses the Google DNS launch. It’s worth a read. Based on today’s announcement, here are my top two predictions for 2010 with regards to DNS. Google Will Own ISP DNS It’s simple – most Internet providers will outsource their DNS functions to Google. I predict that this will happen by the end of June 2010. Google has the cash and will make it super sweet for the ISPs to switch. This will also help Google take the main market share for DNS. Changing your DNS servers on your computer is not that easy and most Internet users will never do it. But if Google partners with say Comcast or Time Warner, they can make the change at the server level and it will be done automatically. The ISPs get major cash, Google gets the overwhelming share of the DNS function and users never know anything changed. For years I thought Google would acquire the big ISPs. Now they have no need to – just take over the DNS and they get control without having to deal with the other ISP operations (e.g. billing, customer service, etc.) Microsoft Will Acquire OpenDNS If we go with Jesse’s argument above that DNS will be the warzone for position next year, Microsoft will want a hand in the pot. OpenDNS won’t be able to resist the bucket of cash that Microsoft will bring. At that point, Microsoft will go after the partnerships I noted above that Google will most likely make. And Jesse will be right – it will be a bloodbath. I can’t tell you whether to switch to Google DNS or not. The bottom line is that Google knows just about everything you do online already. So much so that in the promo for a show tonight on CNBC where Maria Bartiromo will interview Google employees, the only promo they are airing features Maria saying “just how much does Google know about me?” Is today’s announcement a bad thing — I can’t answer that question but my guess is that once the government gets past the health care issues, they may just come knocking. Google has nothing to worry about for now though because the health care debate will take us into 2014. I’d love to get a reaction from the President’s CTO and tech team. If you decide to setup Google DNS, Amit has a great post with videos on how to make the switch. And if you decide to switch, leave a comment with your reasoning for switching. --- -30-____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Fri Dec 4 10:40:23 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:40:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT, deadline Dec 4: reply comments on Treaty for the Visually Impaired References: <1259940391.4463.74.camel@Green> Message-ID: Dear all If your organization would like to support this join letter, pls. send an email to Malini Aisola from KEI, malini.aisola at keionline.org Regards, Katitza Begin forwarded message: > From: Malini Aisola > Date: December 4, 2009 10:26:31 AM EST > To: Katitza Rodriguez > Cc: Manon Ress > Subject: Re: URGENT, deadline Dec 4: reply comments on Treaty for > the Visually Impaired > Reply-To: malini.aisola at keionline.org > > Yes, please. Thank you so much!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Katitza Rodriguez > To: malini.aisola at keionline.org > Cc: Manon Ress > Subject: Re: URGENT, deadline Dec 4: reply comments on Treaty for the > Visually Impaired > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:55 -0500 > > Can I forward this? > > On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Malini Aisola wrote: > >> We have just received an extension until midnight, December 5, 2009 >> at >> 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the deadline to file >> comments. >> Please let me know if you would like to sign on to this letter. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Malini Aisola >> Reply-to: malini.aisola at keionline.org >> To: ip at tacd.org >> Subject: URGENT, deadline Dec 4: reply comments on Treaty for the >> Visually Impaired >> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:07:13 -0500 >> >> Dear colleagues at TACD, >> >> KEI, US PIRG and CPATH invite you to support a short, joint letter >> from consumer groups >> to a consultation that the US government is organizing on a proposal >> supported by the World Blind Union, KEI and some TACD members. >> >> This treaty proposal is formally sponsored by the governments of >> Brazil, Ecuador >> and Paraguay and will be considered at the next session of the WIPO >> Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). The >> proposal >> is for a treaty of copyright exceptions and limitations to facilitate >> access and sharing of works for people who are blind or have other >> reading disabilities. You can find more information about this treaty >> proposal in our website: http://keionline.org/r2r >> >> In preparation for the next meeting of the WIPO SCCR in December, the >> Copyright Office and USPTO are currently requesting comments from >> interesting parties on this treaty proposal: >> http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ >> >> All comments are available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ >> Reply comments are due by tomorrow, Friday, December 4. >> >> Libraries, disability groups and others have filed strong statements >> in >> support of the treaty separately. >> >> The publishers and groups like the Association of American Publishers >> (AAP), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music >> Publishers' Association (NMPA) and Recording Industry Association of >> America (RIAA ) are opposing this treaty using the argument that this >> will set precedent in extending limitations and exception to >> copyright >> beyond the disabled community and beyond exemptions that already >> exist >> in the US. They are suggesting that voluntary licensing mechanisms >> as a >> substitute for a treaty. >> >> We are now hoping to galvanize support from consumer groups on this >> very >> important issue through a joint submission in support of the treaty. >> Both international and US groups can sign alike. >> >> Below is the text of the submission which is supported by U.S. PIRG, >> KEI >> and CPATH. >> >> Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to sign on >> to >> the letter as the deadline is tomorrow, December 4 (US time). Please >> feel free to contact me with any questions. >> >> Best wishes, >> Malini >> >> >> ************************************ >> >> Reply comments of U.S. PIRG, CPATH, XXXXXX to the Copyright Office >> and >> the USPTO regarding the WIPO draft proposal to facilitate access to >> copyrighted works for persons, who are blind or have other reading >> disabilities, in response to the Federal Register Notice of October >> 13, >> 2009. >> >> >> The following comments are a reply to the comments filed by Steven J. >> Metalitz on behalf of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), >> Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), Motion Picture >> Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers' Association >> (NMPA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which >> will >> be referred to as the publisher group, or TPG. >> >> >> >> As US Consumer groups representing sighted and not sighted >> consumers, we >> are writing to express our support for a WIPO treaty for persons who >> are >> blind and have other reading disabilities. >> >> With regard to the comments by TPG, we reject the suggestion that >> voluntary measures by publishers can be a substitute for a treaty, >> for >> the following reasons. >> >> 1. There is no evidence that every publisher of new books, >> periodicals, >> pamphlets and other copyrighted materials will soon begin to >> voluntarily >> license works to publishers of accessible works. To the contrary, few >> works are now licensed voluntarily, and Random House recently >> decided to >> turn off the text-to-speech function in the Kindle 2 electronic >> bookreader. Indeed, even if there were an astronomical increase in >> the >> number of licensed works, it would not be complete or equal to what >> is >> accessible to someone who is not visually impaired. Even in very >> optimistic scenarios, people with reading disabilities will always >> need >> exceptions to achieve more equal access to works. >> >> >> 2. Estimates of the number of published books protected by copyright >> vary, but there are without any doubt millions of books that are out >> of >> print, and for which it is extremely difficult or impossible to >> identify >> and locate copyright owners and negotiate voluntary licenses to use >> works. This problem is even more complicated when one considers the >> need >> to obtain the global rights to works, which may be held by different >> publishers. >> >> 3. The main point of the proposed WIPO treaty for reading >> disabilities >> is to facilitate the cross border import and export of works created >> under exceptions, a topic not addressed at by TPG. The World Blind >> Union >> and other disabilities groups correctly argue that a treaty will >> provide >> the largest benefit -- by reducing legal uncertainty, and providing a >> common set of procedures for publishers of accessible works. >> >> We fully and enthusiastically support the World Blind Union and call >> upon the Administration to support negotiations for a new WIPO treaty >> that will facilitate the cross border sharing of accessible works, >> and >> ensure that blind and other persons with reading disabilities have >> the >> right to make accessible copies of copyrighted works. >> >> >> -- >> Malini Aisola >> Knowledge Ecology International >> 1621 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20009 >> malini.aisola at keionline.org|Tel: +1.202.332.2670|Fax: +1.202.332.2673 >> > > -- > Malini Aisola > Knowledge Ecology International > 1621 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20009 > malini.aisola at keionline.org|Tel: +1.202.332.2670|Fax: +1.202.332.2673 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 4 18:17:06 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 04:17:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70912041517m1fa517c2mb7c5d9592e45a4bd@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian, It has been a wonderful experience working with both you and Parminder under the coordination of whom I had joined the IGC and have been able to participate to the extent possible. Under your coordination as well as that of Ginger has helped IGC move in a very positive direction. I have been indeed privileged to be part of this Civil Society Caucus and wonderful group. I look forward to continued hard work and dedication aligning all the learning and engagement within the IGF for the continued and deepened engagement with issues of importance to the IGC in the role and responsibilities given to me and for those yet to come in the near future. We all have a continued role to play and we have footsteps to follow! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 04:52:15 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:52:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Evgeny Morozov: Free Speech and the Internet (- and Wikipedia) Message-ID: Interesting in light of recent discussions. M -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at kein.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Riemens Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:34 PM To: nettime-l at kein.org Subject: Evgeny Morozov: Free Speech and the Internet (- and Wikipedia) New York Times/ International Herald Tribune Nov 28-9, 2009 Original at: http://bit.ly/5lpXS3 Free Speech and the Internet By EVGENY MOROZOV To appreciate the full bouquet of challenges that the Internet is posing to the modern nation state, look no further than the case of two German men who are waging a legal battle against the U.S.-based Wikimedia Foundation — the charity behind the online encyclopedia — for violating their rights to privacy. In 1990 the two men killed a German actor, were sentenced to life in prison in 1993, and were released on parole a few years ago. The German law allows them to start afresh; the media has been barred from mentioning their full names in relation to the crime. The German-language Wikipedia complied and removed their full names from its entries. The English-language Wikipedians, after producing more than 60 pages of arguments, persevered. Stopp & Stopp, the improbably named law firm representing the two men, duly filed lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation in German courts, which prompted accusations of censorship from the likes of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, a free-speech group. Striking a balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know is never easy and is usually the result of intense national deliberations. Thus the non-compliance by the English-language Wikipedia has most interesting implications for Germany: As long as English remains a global language and Wikipedia entries occupy top search results on Google, many Germans would continue stumbling upon information that their courts do not want them to see. Limiting access to Wikipedia does not seem like an acceptable solution: Only very brave (and impractical) judges would go that far. Such defiance to authorities is not necessarily a “bug” in Wikipedia’s programming: By the same token, Thai courts can’t force Wikipedia to adopt a deferential attitude to the country’s monarch because of its draconian lèse majesté laws. Few would argue that Wikipedians should comply with those. So what to make of Wikipedia’s rebelliousness? That it has inadvertently challenged the sovereignty of the German state should not be written off as just another ironic twist of post-modernity. Germany is not the only government that has difficulty maintaining control in today’s decentralized and digitally-mediated environment, which knows no borders and respects no court orders. How could a modern nation state aspire to protect local norms if it has lost the ability to enforce the very laws that follow from these norms? If entire nations are forced to live in information environments that no longer reflect their own assumptions about human nature, would all of our legal and social norms eventually converge to some global lowest common denominator? We are unlikely to find comprehensive answers to any of these questions this early into the digital game. But we can try solving them one by one. The current case in Germany presents a good opportunity to examine Wikipedia’s rapidly growing power — and the numerous ways in which it can be harnessed to right the wrongs that are bound to arise on its pages. If newspapers produce the first drafts of history, Wikipedians certainly produce its latest and — thanks to Google — most viewed drafts. Wikipedia has become an extremely powerful platform with tremendous real-world repercussions for those caught in the crossfire of its decision-making. For this reason alone, Wikipedia can no longer be run like the favorite basement project of anonymous 13-year-olds. The German case illustrates that some of the disputes could be too complex to be easily pigeon-holed into an intractable body of Wikipedia’s rules and practices. To resolve such cases in a satisfactory fashion, one needs a thorough understanding of philosophy, history, law and ethics; having some hard-earned worldly wisdom wouldn’t hurt either. So far, Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of the project, has served as Wikipedia’s deity-in-chief, adjudicating the cases he saw fit. Often, he did make sensible interventions, including a recent plea to Wikipedians not to disclose the details of the kidnapping of David Rohde, a New York Times reporter in Afghanistan. However, whatever Mr. Wales’ individual talents, many of decisions that Wikipediands need to make appear too daunting for any individual to decide on his own. Thus, whenever current rules and norms of the project come into conflict, Wikipedians shouldn’t shun away from asking for help. An external international panel comprising the world’s most eminent philosophers, legal scholars, historians and others can prevent challenging cases from getting ugly before they reach the courts. After all, there is a reason why newspapers have editorial boards and ombudsmen; it seems strange that one of the most powerful media sites in the world hasn’t yet followed suit. There would be little harm in bringing half a dozen wise people on board, if only to reaffirm Wikipedia’s commitment to becoming the world’s most respected — rather than most feared — source of knowledge. Evgeny Morozov is a Yahoo fellow at Georgetown University and a contributing editor to Foreign Policy. His book on Internet democracy will be published in 2010. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org !DSPAM:2676,4b19e7d8177552167155274! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 09:04:08 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 06:04:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates Message-ID: Questions for the Candidates, TO: Fouad Bajwa Rafik Dammak McTim-Tim McGinnis Jeremy Malcolm - 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative determination? 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you multilingual/literate)? 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Dec 5 09:39:11 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:39:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How about we just follow the normal procedure and ask candidates for a statement? Yehuda Katz, who are you? Thanks, Adam At 6:04 AM -0800 12/5/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: >Questions for the Candidates, > >TO: >Fouad Bajwa >Rafik Dammak >McTim-Tim McGinnis >Jeremy Malcolm > >- > >1. In what direction will your Administration take us? > >2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative >determination? > >3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann >et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation >States, and >The People. > >4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you >multilingual/literate)? > >5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? > >6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? > >7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? > >- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 09:44:06 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:44:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google and UNESCO announce alliance to provide virtual visits of several World Heritage sites Message-ID: <024D2527-6905-473D-B2A8-2B430A4EDBE9@datos-personales.org> Very nice use of the technology: Google and UNESCO announce alliance to provide virtual visits of several World Heritage sites (see news below) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=47015&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+unesco%2Fnews-service+%28UNESCO+News+Service%29 Another history, when the tech touch people's lives: 1. PI files complaint about Google Street View: http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd [347]=x-347-564039 2. UK Information Commissioner rules against PI in favour of Google ...: http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd[347]=x-347-564268 3. Swiss contend Google doesn't blur Street View enough: Switzerland's data protection authority said Friday it will sue Google for allegedly failing to obscure faces, license plates and other sensitive images from its Street View photo mapping Web application. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/11/13/urnidgns002570F3005978D80025766D0055EF32.DTL#ixzz0YpEerTWC Google and UNESCO announce alliance to provide virtual visits of several World Heritage sites http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=47015&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+unesco%2Fnews-service+%28UNESCO+News+Service%29 Sites of outstanding universal value inscribed on the World Heritage List – the historic centre of Prague in the Czech Republic and the old town of Cáceres in Spain, for example – can now be explored online by internet users around the world, thanks to an alliance signed by UNESCO and the international corporation Google. The agreement makes it possible for internet users to visit 18* of the 890 World Heritage properties via Google’s Street View interface. All the other sites on the List will be shown on the Google Earth and Google Maps interfaces. The 19 sites are located in Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Street View provides nearly spherical panoramic (360° horizontal and 290° vertical) views taken by cameras mounted on vehicles. Once obtained, these images are overlaid on Google Maps’ satellite views – the process can take several months. When the specially-equipped cars cannot reach sites to be photographed, tricycles are used. “The alliance with Google makes it possible to offer virtual visits of the sites to everyone, to increase awareness and to encourage participation in the preservation of these treasures,” said UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova. “Cultural and natural heritage sites are an irreplaceable source of inspiration and fascination. This is an exciting project and we're thrilled to be working with UNESCO to make more World Heritage sites universally accessible and useful to all,” said Carlo d’Asaro, Google’s Vice-President for Southern Europe, Middle East and Africa. At UNESCO’s suggestion, Google will soon be visiting and photographing other sites on the List. The focus is on harder-to- access sites, which will be photographed with the permission of site managers. They can then be appreciated by millions of people who might never have the opportunity to visit them otherwise. The sites are located notably in South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the Netherlands. In future, Google and UNESCO will also work together to provide online access, via Google Maps, YouTube and Google Earth, to maps, texts and videos pertaining to UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves, to documentary heritage inscribed on the Memory of the World Register and to endangered languages. ***** *Spain: Santiago de Compostela (Old Town); Old Town of Cáceres; Historic Walled Town of Cuenca; Old City of Salamanca; Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct; Historic City of Toledo France: Paris, Banks of the Seine Italy: Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata; Historic Centre of Siena; Historic Centre of Urbino; Historic Centre of San Gimignano Netherlands: Mill Network at Kinderdijk-Elshout Czech Republic: Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc; Historic Centre of Český Krumlov; Historic Centre of Prague United Kingdom: Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew About UNESCO: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was founded in 1945 and it has 193 Member States. One of its main mandates is to encourage the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. This is the goal of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, an international treaty adopted by UNESCO in 1972. About Google: Google's innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top web property in all major global markets. Google's targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 10:13:23 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:13:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yehuda Are you some kind of HR expert? I understood we are looking for an able erson who will be dedicated to serving the needs and interests of the list - not to elcted to congress. How about you ask questions about how they intend to deal with flame wars/ trolls/ abiding by the rules of the list etc. Out of curiosity, 1. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. 2. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? Regards, Rui 2009/12/5 Yehuda Katz > Questions for the Candidates, > > TO: > Fouad Bajwa > Rafik Dammak > McTim-Tim McGinnis > Jeremy Malcolm > > - > > 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? > > 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative > determination? > > 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., > Icann > et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, > and > The People. > > 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you > multilingual/literate)? > > 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to > date? > > 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? > > 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? > > - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 5 11:31:34 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 08:31:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: ec8caada0912050713v6f033dcbxc9c411386452e3fc@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Adam & Rui, > who are you? > Are you some kind of HR expert? Current Station: National Security Agency (NSA) Sr. Advisor IO [SC: C/S/TS/SAP] SIGINT/FISINT I'm your Supervising Case Worker, This list is our Asset. - >1. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. The 'general perspective' is that: We all participate in a 'game' as mapped by modern Game Theory. ( equilibrium concepts: Downs, Brams, Tsebelis, Grossman & Helpman, Austen-Smith, and Banks) The Players listed above interact in various 'plays', which determine the 'Types of games' being played. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Types_of_games]. I choose the word "dynamic" because that's what it is. It a real-time event. For example, Google (a Multinational Corp.) yesterday announced DNS Services. It will change the game significantly, several postulations have already been made and some yet to be mentioned. That in its self influences the Game. [Ok... for example: Say Google offers 'DNS Filtered Services'? kind of a Net-Nanny that Consumers elect and pay for. What becomes of the 'meaningful context' of Censorship? of which the IGF is poised to combat.] I'm looking for a feasible 'Social-Contract' solution, 'Game Rules' of the Dynamic if you will. I pose the Question to the Candidates, to understand other grasp on Internet socio-political socio-economic dynamics. >2. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? Offering [IG]Forums, and Security to [IG]Internet Forums. - Boyz, I feel the questions I ask are fair. Bio's are not enough, an explanation of the Candidates Agenda and Abilty is quite reasonable to ask, when particularly they are eliciting ones Vote. An absence of that information can lead to a means of completing an ulterior motive contrary to that of the IGC/IGF. Several have already taken advantage of this and are now members of Icann's "Shadow Elite". If the Candidates don't want to answer the questions, I would question their Candidacy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 12:12:17 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <233629.62814.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> These folks should really answer these questions. (I do like the NSA asset comment though;-)  If these people will not, cannot, or in any way should not answer these questions, then there is no way IGF makes any credibility standards at all. --- On Sat, 12/5/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 2:04 PM Questions for the Candidates, TO: Fouad Bajwa Rafik Dammak McTim-Tim McGinnis Jeremy Malcolm - 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative determination? 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you multilingual/literate)? 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 5 12:20:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:20:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <408587.29652.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> How about Adam you just answer the questions?  Statements are not the same.  This is not a highschool popularity contest for King and Queen. IGF suffers from a credibility and contribution disconnect with reality.  The appearance here is of a club or a self appointed honors society for resume building.  How about there is real leadership here and not a glee club and boosters group?  How about we get someone strong with capacity to get others to listen and promote and others to comply and contribute.  How about we get someone who stands for something -- maybe even -- education, Human Rights, A2K? --- On Sat, 12/5/09, Adam Peake wrote: From: Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Questions for the Candidates To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 2:39 PM How about we just follow the normal procedure and ask candidates for a statement? Yehuda Katz, who are you? Thanks, Adam At 6:04 AM -0800 12/5/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: >Questions for the Candidates, > >TO: >Fouad Bajwa >Rafik Dammak >McTim-Tim McGinnis >Jeremy Malcolm > >- > >1. In what direction will your Administration take us? > >2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative >determination? > >3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann >et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation >States, and >The People. > >4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you >multilingual/literate)? > >5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? > >6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? > >7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? > >- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 5 12:30:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:30:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <948927.64493.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If we already need people like Rui coming to the rescue to protect rights of the poor poor candidates who refuse public scrutiny, and using petit procedural censorship protocals to warn against people speaking their minds -- this place is headed in a very bad direction.   I understand that Rui wants a strong hall monitor type communist censorship program so that only good things will be said, that is understandable if you have a weak position or none at all.  That makes sense if we want a party aparatchik of only vetted party comrades.   But if we are to preach and lead in Governance of democratic nature with openness and transparency we must clean house at home first. How can we demand inclusion and a voice in ICANN and GACs when we refuse it here?   Should we assume that the candidates all stand for the notion:  Only pleasant mutually admirable comments on innocuous subjects and self grandiosity are accepted on this list. --- On Sat, 12/5/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Questions for the Candidates To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Yehuda Katz" Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 3:13 PM Yehuda Are you some kind of HR expert? I understood we are looking for an able erson who will be dedicated to serving the needs and interests of the list - not to elcted to congress. How about you ask questions about how they intend to deal with flame wars/ trolls/ abiding by the rules of the list etc. Out of curiosity, 1. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. 2. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? Regards, Rui 2009/12/5 Yehuda Katz Questions for the Candidates, TO: Fouad Bajwa Rafik Dammak McTim-Tim McGinnis Jeremy Malcolm - 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative determination? 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and The People. 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you multilingual/literate)? 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 14:41:02 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:11:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Information: Ballot Begins Monday, December 7, 2009 Message-ID: <4B1AB74E.5060905@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 qshatti at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 14:57:34 2009 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:57:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <609019df0912051157t1b02eab3g8045244003767dc4@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: I think the questions that should be asked to all the candidates are: 1. In what ways you can help the IGC to achieve its mission and vision? 2. How you will be able to promote the IGC objectives and increase its membership base? 3. In what new directions you see the role of civil society in Internet Governance? 4. In what ways and means can civil society in general and the IGC in particular can improve cooperation with other stakeholders in issues related to Internet Governance? 5. How you will enhance discussions among members of the caucus and how can the IGC improve its consensus process? I think that these questions are more close to the coordinator tasks. The response would be in a statement as suggested by Adams. Regards, Qusai On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Questions for the Candidates, > > TO: > Fouad Bajwa > Rafik Dammak > McTim-Tim McGinnis > Jeremy Malcolm > > - > > 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? > > 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative > determination? > > 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann > et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and > The People. > > 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you > multilingual/literate)? > > 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? > > 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? > > 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? > > - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 15:00:15 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:30:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF In-Reply-To: <47EC06D2-D6F6-48F6-A98C-5EDAC421EC81@ciroap.org> References: <4B159B71.2080107@gmail.com> <47EC06D2-D6F6-48F6-A98C-5EDAC421EC81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B1ABBCF.3010809@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 Sat Dec 5 15:07:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:37:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <495127.64088.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> <495127.64088.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B1ABD83.6080502@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 Sat Dec 5 15:27:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:57:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Editorial on IGF - by HR expert Meryem Marzouki Message-ID: <4B1AC244.8080908@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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 5 17:19:46 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:19:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1ADC82.20808@cafonso.ca> Whatever it happens, do not disappear into the sunset, mate! :) --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 5 17:21:04 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:21:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1ADCD0.5080401@cafonso.ca> Hmmmm... this will be a plain voting process, not a selection by a nominating committee. So this questionnaire thing seems nonsense to me. rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > How about we just follow the normal procedure and ask candidates for a > statement? > > Yehuda Katz, who are you? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 6:04 AM -0800 12/5/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> Questions for the Candidates, >> >> TO: >> Fouad Bajwa >> Rafik Dammak >> McTim-Tim McGinnis >> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> - >> >> 1. In what direction will your Administration take us? >> >> 2. What are your strengths & weaknesses under that (your) Administrative >> determination? >> >> 3. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., >> Icann >> et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation >> States, and >> The People. >> >> 4. Are you able to Speak and/or Write in several Languages (are you >> multilingual/literate)? >> >> 5. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, >> to date? >> >> 6. Will you attend in person the IGF 2010? >> >> 7. Why do you feel is IGC is significant? >> >> - >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cafonso.ca Sat Dec 5 17:22:29 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:22:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Questions for the Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1ADD25.8070601@cafonso.ca> Adam & Rui, you asked for it... :) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > Adam & Rui, > >> who are you? >> Are you some kind of HR expert? > > Current Station: > National Security Agency (NSA) > Sr. Advisor IO [SC: C/S/TS/SAP] > SIGINT/FISINT > > I'm your Supervising Case Worker, > This list is our Asset. > > - > >> 1. What is your general perspective on the dynamics between the: U.N., Icann > et. al. (Incl. IANA, RIR, etc.), Multinational Corporations, Nation States, and > The People. > > The 'general perspective' is that: We all participate in a 'game' as mapped by > modern Game Theory. > ( equilibrium concepts: Downs, Brams, Tsebelis, Grossman & Helpman, > Austen-Smith, and Banks) > The Players listed above interact in various 'plays', which determine the > 'Types of games' being played. > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Types_of_games]. > > I choose the word "dynamic" because that's what it is. It a real-time event. > For example, Google (a Multinational Corp.) yesterday announced DNS Services. > It will change the game significantly, several postulations have already been > made and some yet to be mentioned. That in its self influences the Game. > [Ok... for example: Say Google offers 'DNS Filtered Services'? kind of a > Net-Nanny that Consumers elect and pay for. What becomes of the 'meaningful > context' of Censorship? of which the IGF is poised to combat.] > > I'm looking for a feasible 'Social-Contract' solution, 'Game Rules' of the > Dynamic if you will. > > I pose the Question to the Candidates, to understand other grasp on Internet > socio-political socio-economic dynamics. > > >> 2. What has been your most significant contribution to the Internet, to date? > > Offering [IG]Forums, and Security to [IG]Internet Forums. > > - > > Boyz, I feel the questions I ask are fair. > > Bio's are not enough, an explanation of the Candidates Agenda and Abilty is > quite reasonable to ask, when particularly they are eliciting ones Vote. > An absence of that information can lead to a means of completing an ulterior > motive contrary to that of the IGC/IGF. > > Several have already taken advantage of this and are now members of Icann's > "Shadow Elite". > > If the Candidates don't want to answer the questions, I would question their > Candidacy. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 00:28:36 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:58:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: <4B191761.8020809@nupef.org.br> References: <4B191761.8020809@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: Ian You have been efficient, balanced and fair in your position as IGC Coordinator for the last two years. Hope that the IGC would continue to have your participation in an enhanced Capacity as Past Co-ordinator in an Advisory role as any new team would immensely benefit by drawing from the experience of those who have served this position earlier. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Graciela Selaimen wrote: > Ian, > > Thanks so much for your dedication, sensibleness and wisdom. > You've been an excellent co coordinator, with a lucid vision and effective > actions. > > I also wish the very best for the next person in this position. > > regards, > Graciela > > Ian Peter escreveu: > > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as >> soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I >> disappear into the sunset. >> >> Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to >> replace >> me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the >> election, >> and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co >> coordinator tasks. >> >> What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal >> full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the >> Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer >> help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. >> >> You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the >> last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too >> willing >> to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with >> Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, >> competent, >> and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a >> co >> coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent >> support. >> >> So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are >> announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure >> and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of >> years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very >> much >> treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the >> experiences >> of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying >> involved in a more minor way. >> >> And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, >> wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and >> a >> commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure >> there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. >> And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 08:40:11 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 05:40:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Dammak | McGinnis Message-ID: I've have paired down my vote decision to two Candidates, Why should I vote for one over the other? Rafik Dammak | Tim McGinnis - [I'd like to see them together as a single team] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 09:00:42 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 09:00:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44436194-5B72-41FB-B621-B8371C980103@datos-personales.org> Dear all I personally consider that is vitally important that candidates published strong statements even if its a plain voting process. A Statement demonstrate commitment, leadership in the issue that the person care about, the vision that the person has in order to move forward the Caucus. We can know their passions, ideals and knowledge, among others. Writing a strong statement is also a small sign of commitment to the task, although I am pretty sure all the candidates are committed to the task. My two cents, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 09:30:52 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 09:30:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Message-ID: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> Dear IGC members: I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of organization. It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, among many other factors. We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, and defend all with the same passion. We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on the issues that civil society participants cares about. Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do it if we want to be effective. Warm Regards Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 11:10:53 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0DBB251D-8C0F-4C31-B079-9514CC074F2D@datos-personales.org> Dear Ian Gracias for your wonderful work on the caucus and for your commitment to defend the public interest at any time when you have the opportunity to intervene. It was nice working with you in this last igf in Sharm, and I wish you the best. But please, do not disappear. I truly hope you remain pretty active in the list. Big Hug, Katitza On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator > ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words > before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to > replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the > election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take > on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my > personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members > of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to > offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult > times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who > during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too > willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work > with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, > competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks > of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent > support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when > they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my > pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last > couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I > very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the > experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters – to me the qualities you should seek are > dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of > view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am > sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me > personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 11:28:55 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:58:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC documents and organization (Katitza) In-Reply-To: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4B1BDBC7.2090908@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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Dec 6 12:37:13 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:37:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC documents and organization In-Reply-To: <4B1BDBC7.2090908@gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <4B1BDBC7.2090908@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger: Sure. We can start with something specific and concrete. I can list those documents that I am familiar with, which has been written by civil society organizations, bloggers, grassroots activists. It would be nice to have them on the website. People can add others too. I can list some papers on the areas of Copyright in the digital environment, Access to Knowledge, Privacy (which is my area of expertise, and the area I am working on now). Many others can contribute to expand the list too in this area and others of course: Access to broadband, Freedom of Expression, Due Process of Law, etc. Just for example, consumer organizations has develop a Consumer Rights Charter. This is a partnership between EU and US consumer organizations (TACD.org) TACD is a project of Consumer International. For example: Resolution on Social networking 05/07/2009 Resolution on Marketing to Children online 04/08/2009 Charter of Consumer Rights in the Digital World 03/01/2008 Resolution on Net Neutrality Those papers can help us in our advocacy work. II. Regarding participation on the ICANN plan My participation at IGF is concentrated in some emerging privacy issues that I will definitely always bring it into the table at the IGC, and other spaces. I also happy to bring into the table others consensus views from civil society on other Human Rights issues. IV. Regarding the process of IGF: I consider IGF a place to do advocacy work and I would prefer to focus on the advocacy part (and being an observer of the process). On this line, I remember a comment from Wolfgang Kleinwächter in an email to the IGC: In diplomacy governments have the tricky technique to have a consensus on the basis of "agree to disagree". They can continue with totally opposite positions in something what they called for years a "peacful coexistence", hating each other, fighting against each other, but agreeing in issues of "common interest" as the governments of the United States of America and the Soviet Union did during the cold war on SALT, Start, ABM and others. On the Consensus: I am happy to disagree. We should not always agree in everything. Wolfgang K. wrote in this list a few weeks/months ago. He said: "Consensus: We agree to things we should never agree to" His message was stored in my mind. We should have clear in which issues we agree on, and in which others we do not agree on. Finally: > More importantly, I agree with you that the IGC offers us a space to > discuss our current concerns so that we can stay up-to-date with the > work that everyone is doing in their particular areas, so we can > each support the documents and activities of our choice. Members > post their work and links to their documents so we can sign on, > comment, collaborate or support them. I think this is a very > important facet of the IGC and I know that you will continue to help > us with this work. Please make a concrete proposal or start the > discussion thread(s) necessary to initiate the organized efforts > that you propose. I fully agree with this. It is a very powerful tool. Warm Regards, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 13:15:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:15:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Iran slows Internet access before student protests Message-ID: <175682.11950.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is truly fantastic!  The Internet has become such a weapon of knowledge, such a tool of information, so important that "stable" governments must attack it first in a Preemptive strike against freedom of Speech. Not a nuclear bomb -- not chemical or biological warfare.  Not a drop of blood.  Because of the Internet the battles are being fought where they belong.  In the hearts and minds of the people.  They (Iranian gov.) are not launching an attack against the US or Israel or Iraq or shooting the "rebels" in the street or in their schools. They are attacking the actual-in-fact governance of "the people". We here on this list are not perfect, we are not saints, we are not getting anything done.  But we exist and we care and we provide hope.  We are in fact providing the support of the modern day armies that will rise up against dictatorship and oppression and illegitimate regimes. Not with bloodshed or fanaticism but with reason and passion and caring. When this group is attacked and its posters thrown down and its funding threatened and its credibility impugned -- know that it is an attack on the very freedom fighters that stand for freedom. It is an attack on the formation of the true governance of the people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Dec 6 13:27:45 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:27:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Statement Elections In-Reply-To: <44436194-5B72-41FB-B621-B8371C980103@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <458458.18753.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Speaking for myself and not the millions I represent ;-).  We are known as the independents but we are so independent that we have no organization, leadership or recognition. This position as stated succinctly and to the point by Katitza is critical for understanding.  In my lame way of speaking it is; Either you have something to contribute or get out of the way.  Do not take a commitment here, if your mere lack of commitment will in fact hurt the cause.  If you take this commitment and are not at least committed enough to tell us what you think, then please do not take this position just to add on to your resume. Those currently under attack by an attack on their connectivity should not be held hostage by your ego.  We need people of Character to lead this list. --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: From: Katitza Rodriguez Subject: [governance] Statement Elections To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 2:00 PM Dear all I personally consider that is vitally important that candidates published strong statements even if its a plain voting process. A Statement demonstrate commitment, leadership in the issue that the person care about, the vision that the person has in order to move forward the Caucus. We can know their passions, ideals and knowledge, among others. Writing a strong statement is also a small sign of commitment to the task, although I am pretty sure all the candidates are committed to the task. My two cents, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 6 13:30:21 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:30:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Dammak | McGinnis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <239183.18112.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Beautiful Yehuda  --- You are just like they are;;;;  No reasons, No evaluation, no issues, just a popularity vote!  It makes more sense just to let people buy this position. --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: [governance] Dammak | McGinnis To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 1:40 PM I've have paired down my vote decision to two Candidates, Why should I vote for one over the other?        Rafik Dammak | Tim McGinnis - [I'd like to see them together as a single team] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Dec 6 13:46:17 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:46:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC documents and organization (Katitza) In-Reply-To: <4B1BDBC7.2090908@gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <4B1BDBC7.2090908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912061046gac50ddeobf294f7630356f02@mail.gmail.com> I think this discussion can also be moved to the IGF retructuring thread because while we discuss the IGF restructuring issues, we can also share our concerns of what should IGC do to enhance/strengthen/deepen its role in the IGF Process as a whole? On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Katitza, and welcome as an active participant in the IGC. I am very > excited about the discussions you are suggesting, and hope you will > facilitate the work to bring these ideas to fruition.   Can you propose a > working method to take advantage of your expertise and interests and tell us > more about what you would like to do, please! > > There are two discussions open on the list right now, where your input will > be valuable: concrete proposals for the IGF, (see Re: [governance] Proposals > for Restructuring of the IGF) and a comment to ICANN's Strategic Plan. (see > Re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013). > > We also need to keep in mind that the IGC is a very diverse group with > different priorities and viewpoints, so it is not possible or necessary to > reach consensus on all points: individuals, dynamic coalitions, ngo's and > other groups work in their areas of specific interest. These groups produce > excellent work, like (in my opinion) the recent APC statement after the IGF, > the Madrid Declaration, the current IRP work, the current APC charter > review, and many others. However, a document produced by the IGC has to > address so many different viewpoints, I wonder how we can end up actually > saying anything: two things will usually happen: either we get a watered > down statement that everyone can agree with, so it is pretty bland, or we > specify that "some members suggest that A, while others feel that B" so we > do not make a strong, unified point either. However there is no doubt that > we learn from the discussion process, and have made good statements in the > past. Now is an important time to prepare a statement for the Open > Consultations, so you have plenty to work on! > > More importantly, I agree with you that the IGC offers us a space to discuss > our current concerns so that we can stay up-to-date with the work that > everyone is doing in their particular areas, so we can each support the > documents and activities of our choice.  Members post their work and links > to their documents so we can sign on, comment, collaborate or support them. > I think this is a very important facet of the IGC and I know that you will > continue to help us with this work. Please make a concrete proposal or start > the discussion thread(s) necessary to initiate the organized efforts that > you propose. > > Thanks! I look forward to taking advantage of your energy. > > Saludos, Ginger > > > > > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Dear IGC members: > > I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of > members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of > organization. > >  It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the > most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can > take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were > released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should > be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the > capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, > among many other factors. > > We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care > about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, > and defend all with the same passion. > > We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every > morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop > and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some > groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? > This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 > workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two > civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we > care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share > knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on > the issues that civil society participants cares about. > > Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move forward > the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do it if we > want to be effective. > > Warm Regards > > Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 avri at acm.org Sun Dec 6 14:01:18 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:01:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4B1ABD83.6080502@gmail.com> References: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> <495127.64088.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4B1ABD83.6080502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D6531C-9647-4171-B273-99D2E0AA8AE6@acm.org> i'll particpate in this one. a. On 5 Dec 2009, at 21:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > By now, most of you should have had a chance to read: ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > (note that the .pdf file was posted to the list by Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan). > > Wolfgang suggested that the IGC write a comment. The comment period is open until January 21, 2010. See http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec09-en.htm > > What do you think? Is there a group of people interested, willing and able in proposing an IGC comment? > > Wolfgang? > > Ginger > > Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan wrote: >> >> >> From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KleinwächterWolfgang >> Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 7:43:06 PM >> Subject: re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 >> >> Thanks Wolfgang >> >> but I couldn't open the link to the strategic plan. >> >> Concerning ICANN's "successful participation" to the ITU Plenipo there are imho only two possibilities >> - the ICANN is a sector member of the ITU >> - ICANN is officially invited by the ITU (SG and/or Council) >> Let's wait for further information and more precise reasons on the meaning of this probably "non event" >> >> Best >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 03/12/09 22:53 >> > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 >> > >> > >> > I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf >> > >> > BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) >> > >> > 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Dec 6 14:01:51 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:01:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement Elections In-Reply-To: <458458.18753.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <458458.18753.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Eric, all: I know very well 3 of the 4 candidates. I trust them. I actually have doubts between two of them. Main reason I would like to read a statement. There are many people who might not know well the candidates, they might have doubts, too. I participate in the IGC in my personal capacity as this is the mandate of the charter. However, for a matter of disclaimer, I work for the Electronic Privacy Information Center as Director, EPIC International Privacy Program, and our views are clearly express in our webpage. EPIC is also part of many coalitions working on Internet Policy like The Public Voice and a consumer coalition: TACD (tacd.org). In another related topic (not associate with this elections nor with this candidates) because I know 3 of them very well, you raise an interesting point. At the IGF, there are plenty of people and lot of great independent voices. I have met wonderful people with strong ideas and ideals, believes and causes to defend that I learn through the many workshops and informal interactions during IGF. However, a few times it is difficult to figure out which cause some of them are advancing. Statement can help close that bridge of knowledge. Best, Katitza On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Speaking for myself and not the millions I represent ;-). We are > known as the independents but we are so independent that we have no > organization, leadership or recognition. > > This position as stated succinctly and to the point by Katitza is > critical for understanding. In my lame way of speaking it is; > Either you have something to contribute or get out of the way. Do > not take a commitment here, if your mere lack of commitment will in > fact hurt the cause. If you take this commitment and are not at > least committed enough to tell us what you think, then please do not > take this position just to add on to your resume. > > Those currently under attack by an attack on their connectivity > should not be held hostage by your ego. We need people of Character > to lead this list. > > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Katitza Rodriguez personales.org> wrote: > > From: Katitza Rodriguez > Subject: [governance] Statement Elections > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 2:00 PM > > Dear all > > I personally consider that is vitally important that candidates > published strong statements even if its a plain voting process. A > Statement demonstrate commitment, leadership in the issue that the > person care about, the vision that the person has in order to move > forward the Caucus. We can know their passions, ideals and > knowledge, among others. Writing a strong statement is also a small > sign of commitment to the task, although I am pretty sure all the > candidates are committed to the task. > > My two cents, > > Katitza > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 6 14:16:46 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:16:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 Message-ID: <567592.27467.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I will set aside my moral pontithications, personal attacks and general rabble rousing and try to contribute to this endeavor in a very practical way. As an ICANN GA participant since 1999 I do not know anything but I have seen it all. The email address for comments is; stratplan-2010 at icann.org   While it is good to be counted there as individuals and add to headcounts pro and con. I think it would also be nice to prepare a statement with signatures or whatever. It is important to keep in mind that ICANN, historically at this stage does not go into much detail when reviewing the input.  So clarity in concise positions is necessary.       --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 To: "IGC" Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 7:01 PM i'll particpate in this one. a. On 5 Dec 2009, at 21:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > By now, most of you should have had a chance to read: ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > (note that the .pdf file was posted to the list by Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan). > > Wolfgang suggested that the IGC write a comment. The comment period is open until January 21, 2010.  See http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec09-en.htm > > What do you think? Is there a group of people interested, willing and able in proposing an IGC comment? > > Wolfgang? > > Ginger > > Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan wrote: >> >> >> From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KleinwächterWolfgang >> Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 7:43:06 PM >> Subject: re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 >> >> Thanks Wolfgang >> >> but I couldn't open the link to the strategic plan. >> >> Concerning ICANN's "successful participation" to the ITU Plenipo there are imho only two possibilities >> - the ICANN is a sector member of the ITU >> - ICANN is officially invited by the ITU (SG and/or Council) >> Let's wait for further information and  more precise reasons on the meaning of this probably "non event" >> >> Best >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 03/12/09 22:53 >> > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 >> > >> > >> > I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf >> > >> > BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) >> > >> > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 14:22:02 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:22:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC documents and organization In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912061046gac50ddeobf294f7630356f02@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <4B1BDBC7.2090908@gmail.com> <701af9f70912061046gac50ddeobf294f7630356f02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sounds good to me. Happy to contribute in that threads. I am off now. Its sunday. Best, Katitza On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I think this discussion can also be moved to the IGF retructuring > thread because while we discuss the IGF restructuring issues, we can > also share our concerns of what should IGC do to > enhance/strengthen/deepen its role in the IGF Process as a whole? > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi Katitza, and welcome as an active participant in the IGC. I am >> very >> excited about the discussions you are suggesting, and hope you will >> facilitate the work to bring these ideas to fruition. Can you >> propose a >> working method to take advantage of your expertise and interests >> and tell us >> more about what you would like to do, please! >> >> There are two discussions open on the list right now, where your >> input will >> be valuable: concrete proposals for the IGF, (see Re: [governance] >> Proposals >> for Restructuring of the IGF) and a comment to ICANN's Strategic >> Plan. (see >> Re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013). >> >> We also need to keep in mind that the IGC is a very diverse group >> with >> different priorities and viewpoints, so it is not possible or >> necessary to >> reach consensus on all points: individuals, dynamic coalitions, >> ngo's and >> other groups work in their areas of specific interest. These groups >> produce >> excellent work, like (in my opinion) the recent APC statement after >> the IGF, >> the Madrid Declaration, the current IRP work, the current APC charter >> review, and many others. However, a document produced by the IGC >> has to >> address so many different viewpoints, I wonder how we can end up >> actually >> saying anything: two things will usually happen: either we get a >> watered >> down statement that everyone can agree with, so it is pretty bland, >> or we >> specify that "some members suggest that A, while others feel that >> B" so we >> do not make a strong, unified point either. However there is no >> doubt that >> we learn from the discussion process, and have made good statements >> in the >> past. Now is an important time to prepare a statement for the Open >> Consultations, so you have plenty to work on! >> >> More importantly, I agree with you that the IGC offers us a space >> to discuss >> our current concerns so that we can stay up-to-date with the work >> that >> everyone is doing in their particular areas, so we can each support >> the >> documents and activities of our choice. Members post their work >> and links >> to their documents so we can sign on, comment, collaborate or >> support them. >> I think this is a very important facet of the IGC and I know that >> you will >> continue to help us with this work. Please make a concrete proposal >> or start >> the discussion thread(s) necessary to initiate the organized >> efforts that >> you propose. >> >> Thanks! I look forward to taking advantage of your energy. >> >> Saludos, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in >> terms of >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of >> organization. >> >> It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to >> address the >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that >> IGC can >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers >> that were >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. >> It should >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the >> knowledge, the >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things >> done, >> among many other factors. >> >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that >> we care >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants >> care about, >> and defend all with the same passion. >> >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each >> workshop >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole >> group? >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than >> 111 >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one >> or two >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues >> that we >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the >> room, on >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. >> >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can >> move forward >> the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do >> it if we >> want to be effective. >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Katitza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 14:40:37 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:40:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] There is no time to wait: Sign the Madrid Privacy Declaration Message-ID: <4D748AC9-F9A3-4DF3-9D7F-A2D4F6C075E3@datos-personales.org> Over 250 civil society organizations, bloggers, activists, privacy experts, geeks from more than 40 countries are urging countries around the world to safeguard privacy, a fundamental human right. Governments and corporations are gathering too much information on individuals, with too few protections. New systems of identification, tracking and surveillance threaten the rights of citizens and consumers. The Public Voice coalition are encouraging citizens around the world to sign The Madrid Privacy Declaration of Global Privacy Standards for a Global World. Members of the coalition will remind our governments and corporations, at every opportunity, in every meeting at the national, regional and international level that they must protect our right to control our own personal information. Act Now: Sign the Civil Society Madrid Privacy Declaration by sending an email to privacy @ datos-personales.org Name: Title/Affiliation: City and State: Optional: Share your ideas of how you can help us spread the word of the campaign! Who are blogging about the Madrid Privacy Declaration? http://thepublicvoice.org/2009/12/sign-the-madrid-privacy-declaration.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 16:56:20 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:56:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone: I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and concise LSE definition of this dilemma at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm ): 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust solution is desirable. 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a physical "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 meetings/conferences. 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC membership can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone considerations aside. 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 were presented. Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > Dear IGC members: > > I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of > members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of > organization. > > It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the > most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can > take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were > released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should > be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the > capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, > among many other factors. > > We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care > about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, > and defend all with the same passion. > > We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every > morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop > and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some > groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? > This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 > workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two > civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we > care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share > knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on > the issues that civil society participants cares about. > > Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move > forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do > it if we want to be effective. > > Warm Regards > > Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 17:50:20 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:50:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Lots of productive structural ideas. I too like projects that get themselves well-organized and create momentum. On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > platform Do the social networking platforms work well on mobile phones? I think for much of civil society that needs to be included, web access is too expensive. I'm also not sure how accessible the websites are to people with reading related disabilities. It would be interesting to try out a model and get feedback. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 17:55:22 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:55:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Some Sunday Fun for the Monday blues Message-ID: <808a83f60912061455q483cebc0k76ebbb10c56173ea@mail.gmail.com> How about a fun posting for a change? This one will be useful for all the Twitter addicts out there ... Do you work at an organisation which foolishly blocks social networking sites like Twitter due to some misguided hope at improved productivity (now that could be the subject of another post)? Enter - Spreadtweet http://elliottkember.com/spreadtweet/ Looks like Excel - but it's really Twitter. Web 2.0. You really can't stop it guys. Just don't fall too far behind before Web 3.0 emerges. BTW - I tweet under the handle http://twitter.com/ienewmedia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 18:03:25 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 04:03:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> My two cents on this: * This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as criticism, please! Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near future. But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps. This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly, some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively. Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet! I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter provides us with. I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put as an example. I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!! I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed. All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a community to carry out a number of collective activities with regards to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general. My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat. I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings, those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for IGC!!! Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!! On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hi everyone: > I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, > because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own > experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a > wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and > concise LSE definition of this dilemma > at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm): > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's > brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted > Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on > Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging > solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such > as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust > solution is desirable. > 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a physical > "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a > series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely > slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more > diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 > meetings/conferences. > 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC membership > can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if > (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone > considerations aside. > 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate > financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the > existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model > is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide > support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 were > presented. > Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of >> organization. >> >>  It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, >> among many other factors. >> >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, >> and defend all with the same passion. >> >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. >> >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move >> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do >> it if we want to be effective. >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Katitza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 18:04:43 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:04:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60912061504y139438dfl9de23ebd4f6785d1@mail.gmail.com> I'm not sure this is common knowledge but Twitter pretty much started and found popularity as an SMS networking platform for the very reason expressed by Sylvia (well, at least one of the reasons ;0). Worked well in the US. Unfortunately the idiotic and unintelligible world of telecommunications tariffs and interconnection agreements got in the way and the platform eventually migrated to the web - eventually shutting down/out the international SMS gateway although there are several hacks still out there and specific country support as can be found on the Twitter help pages. On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Sylvia Caras wrote: > Lots of productive structural ideas. I too like projects that get > themselves well-organized and create momentum. > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > wrote: > > > > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > > platform > > Do the social networking platforms work well on mobile phones? I > think for much of civil society that needs to be included, web access > is too expensive. I'm also not sure how accessible the websites are > to people with reading related disabilities. It would be interesting > to try out a model and get feedback. > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 18:58:42 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:58:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> *Ditto about the criticism comment. All views are to be welcomed. Surely. :0) I am also not sure why it was necessary to refer to my current employment in your response. In any event and with a view to full disclosure, so as to avoid any misunderstanding, I have been involved with the using and promoting the use of Internet since my days as a student and Researcher at University (1993-1997) and have been involved with my current Government job as a civil/public servant from 2005 designing and implementing projects relating to digital inclusion and improving the lives of the citizens of Trinidad & Tobago through the use of ICT. Now, first of all, I am confused about the statements that the discussions on improving the effectiveness of the IGC should somehow be subsumed under the IGF threads (again difficult to achieve with a limited mailing list format unless your email platform has an extremely effective search facility). When last I read it, para 72 of the Tunis agenda expressly states that the IGF is multi-stakeholder - *NOT* Civil Society focused. I refer specifically to: *"... Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body."* Ginger's suggestion of starting new threads with these improvements in mind is perhaps more useful to achieve the objective. Secondly, at last count from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E I recognize that the IGC has approximately 150 members on the mailing list. As a comparative example, Diplo's recently initiated Ning community has 646 members with over 50 subject-specific sub-groups. If Diplo were to solicit an average annual voluntary donation of US$10 (less than US$1 per month) from its membership for 1 year they could collect approx. US$6,460. Imagine now if they used those funds to do effective outreach and recruitment, open up the discussion platform even further and therefore triple their membership for example ... The cold, hard question that needs to be asked is the status quo a critical mass to move forward or does the IGC want or should I say need to grow and raise its profile in order to become a louder, more vibrant voice - representing as one group, for example, the interests of the very low-income, grassroots members they are mandated to AS WELL AS Digital Natives? I have examined the IGC Charter again and for the purposes of the discussion nothing stated there expressly limits consideration and indeed, implementation of suggestions designed to grow and evolve the IGC into what it is destined to become. As a matter of fact, my own interpretation of several clauses of the Charter seems to suggest that the IGC should be doing more than what currently obtains. And, on a technological note, Fouad, proper implementation of a social networking platform can cater for all users - including those who prefer to use a mailing list, or WAP, or SMS alerts, or even Fax - this is done via the implementation of full alerting and posting directly via <> to the platform - the WWW being just one view of the network - as a matter of fact, this is desirable. Web 2.0 and Social Networking as we know is *BOTH* active/passive, as well as proactive & reactive hence its beauty, popularity, and effectiveness. Its power, when used wisely is unmistakable. On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My two cents on this: > > * This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as > criticism, please! > > Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the > ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have > an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can > help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near > future. > > But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had > no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to > use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was > limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps. > This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly, > some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like > whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to > the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the > choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one > point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively. > Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device > or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is > supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our > members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet! > > I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the > same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects > but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive > consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual > consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter > provides us with. > > I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the > various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize > that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they > find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put > as an example. > > I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us > don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able > to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak > Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many > other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various > occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of > the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!! > > I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we > have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and > invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed. > All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of > conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a > community to carry out a number of collective activities with regards > to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general. > > My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing > restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these > discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the > previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a > record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as > suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our > website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be > collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat. > > I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with > the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the > future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings, > those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for > IGC!!! > > Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!! > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > wrote: > > Hi everyone: > > I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, > > because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own > > experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a > > wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and > > concise LSE definition of this dilemma > > at > http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm > ): > > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > > platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's > > brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted > > Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences > on > > Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging > > solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions > such > > as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust > > solution is desirable. > > 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a > physical > > "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a > > series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A > timely > > slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more > > diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 > > meetings/conferences. > > 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC > membership > > can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if > > (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone > > considerations aside. > > 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate > > financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the > > existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation > model > > is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide > > support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 > were > > presented. > > Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear IGC members: > >> > >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of > >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of > >> organization. > >> > >> It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address > the > >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC > can > >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that > were > >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It > should > >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the > >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, > >> among many other factors. > >> > >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we > care > >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care > about, > >> and defend all with the same passion. > >> > >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every > >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each > workshop > >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some > >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? > >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 > >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or > two > >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we > >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share > >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, > on > >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. > >> > >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move > >> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should > do > >> it if we want to be effective. > >> > >> Warm Regards > >> > >> Katitza > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From andersj at elon.edu Sun Dec 6 19:09:38 2009 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:09:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: FYI, Based on my personal experience, people are willing to sign up for group sites like those offered by organizations such as IGF-USA and Diplo, but they do not actively participate in these groups. Noting the number of people who have signed up for such a group is in no way a measure of its efficacy. I am one of the administrators for the IGF-USA Ning site. The only action we see on it other than people joining is action we force by requiring people to post ­ such as requiring that they prepare and post information on presentations for the Oct. 2 meeting of IGF-USA last fall. Most people still do business by e-mail, and we found with IGF-USA that people joined Ning and then ignored it and just communicated on e-mail lists. I could be all wrong, but it seems as if most conversations of a political nature among highly involved Internet stakeholders still happen mostly by e-mail. Janna On 12/6/09 6:58 PM, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > *Ditto about the criticism comment. All views are to be welcomed. Surely. :0)  > > I am also not sure why it was necessary to refer to my current employment in > your response. In any event and with a view to full disclosure, so as to avoid > any misunderstanding, I have been involved with the using and promoting the > use of Internet since my days as a student and Researcher at University > (1993-1997) and have been involved with my current Government job as a > civil/public servant from 2005 designing and implementing projects relating to > digital inclusion and improving the lives of the citizens of Trinidad & Tobago > through the use of ICT. > > Now, first of all, I am confused about the statements that the discussions on > improving the effectiveness of the IGC should somehow be subsumed under the > IGF threads (again difficult to achieve with a limited mailing list format > unless your email platform has an extremely effective search facility). When > last I read it, para 72 of the Tunis agenda expressly states that the IGF is > multi-stakeholder - NOT Civil Society focused. I refer specifically to: > > "... Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that > do not fall within the scope of any existing body." > > Ginger's suggestion of starting new threads with these improvements in mind is > perhaps more useful to achieve the objective. > > Secondly, at last count > from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E I recognize that the > IGC has approximately 150 members on the mailing list. > > As a comparative example, Diplo's recently initiated Ning community has 646 > members with over 50 subject-specific sub-groups. > > If Diplo were to solicit an average annual voluntary donation of US$10 (less > than US$1 per month) from its membership for 1 year they could collect approx. > US$6,460. > > Imagine now if they used those funds to do effective outreach and recruitment, > open up the discussion platform even further and therefore triple their > membership for example ... > > The cold, hard question that needs to be asked is the status quo a critical > mass to move forward or does the IGC want or should I say need to grow and > raise its profile in order to become a louder, more vibrant voice - > representing as one group, for example, the interests of the very low-income, > grassroots members they are mandated to AS WELL AS Digital Natives? > > I have examined the IGC Charter again and for the purposes of the discussion > nothing stated there expressly limits consideration and indeed, implementation > of suggestions designed to grow and evolve the IGC into what it is destined to > become. As a matter of fact, my own interpretation of several clauses of the > Charter seems to suggest that the IGC should be doing more than what currently > obtains. > > And, on a technological note, Fouad, proper implementation of a social > networking platform can cater for all users - including those who prefer to > use a mailing list, or WAP, or SMS alerts, or even Fax - this is done via the > implementation of full alerting and posting directly via < of delivery channel>> to the platform - the WWW being just one view of the > network - as a matter of fact, this is desirable. Web 2.0 and Social > Networking as we know is BOTH active/passive, as well as proactive & reactive > hence its beauty, popularity, and effectiveness. > > Its power, when used wisely is unmistakable.  > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> My two cents on this: >> >> * This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as >> criticism, please! >> >> Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the >> ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have >> an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on >> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can >> help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near >> future. >> >> But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had >> no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to >> use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was >> limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps. >> This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly, >> some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like >> whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to >> the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the >> choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one >> point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively. >> Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device >> or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is >> supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our >> members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet! >> >> I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the >> same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects >> but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive >> consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual >> consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter >> provides us with. >> >> I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the >> various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize >> that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they >> find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put >> as an example. >> >> I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us >> don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able >> to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak >> Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many >> other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various >> occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of >> the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!! >> >> I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we >> have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and >> invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed. >> All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of >> conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a >> community to carry out  a number of collective activities with regards >> to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general. >> >> My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing >> restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these >> discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the >> previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a >> record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as >> suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our >> website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be >> collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat. >> >> I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with >> the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the >> future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings, >> those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for >> IGC!!! >> >> Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!! >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >> wrote: >>> > Hi everyone: >>> > I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, >>> > because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own >>> > experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a >>> > wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and >>> > concise LSE definition of this dilemma >>> > >>> at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.h >>> tm): >>> > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format >>> > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration >>> > platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's >>> > brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted >>> > Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences >>> on >>> > Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging >>> > solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions >>> such >>> > as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust >>> > solution is desirable. >>> > 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a >>> physical >>> > "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a >>> > series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely >>> > slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more >>> > diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 >>> > meetings/conferences. >>> > 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC >>> membership >>> > can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if >>> > (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone >>> > considerations aside. >>> > 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate >>> > financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the >>> > existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model >>> > is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide >>> > support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 >>> were >>> > presented. >>> > Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear IGC members: >>>> >> >>>> >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of >>>> >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of >>>> >> organization. >>>> >> >>>> >>  It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address >>>> the >>>> >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC >>>> can >>>> >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that >>>> were >>>> >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It >>>> should >>>> >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the >>>> >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, >>>> >> among many other factors. >>>> >> >>>> >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we >>>> care >>>> >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care >>>> about, >>>> >> and defend all with the same passion. >>>> >> >>>> >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every >>>> >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each >>>> workshop >>>> >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some >>>> >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? >>>> >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 >>>> >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or >>>> two >>>> >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we >>>> >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share >>>> >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on >>>> >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. >>>> >> >>>> >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move >>>> >> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do >>>> >> it if we want to be effective. >>>> >> >>>> >> Warm Regards >>>> >> >>>> >> Katitza >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >> >>>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, 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 >> Advisor & Researcher >> ICT4D & Internet Governance >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: >> 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 >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> Director of Internet Projects >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 20:03:04 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:03:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B48E403-81DC-468A-B72E-6F6D2431CFF7@datos-personales.org> Dear all: I am now confused. > Now, first of all, I am confused about the statements that the > discussions on improving the effectiveness of the IGC should somehow > be subsumed under the IGF threads (again difficult to achieve with a > limited mailing list format unless your email platform has an > extremely effective search facility). When last I read it, para 72 > of the Tunis agenda expressly states that the IGF is multi- > stakeholder - NOT Civil Society focused. I refer specifically to: > > "... Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet > and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing > body." > > Ginger's suggestion of starting new threads with these improvements > in mind is perhaps more useful to achieve the objective. > I understand that the IGF is a multi stakeholder dialogue but I understand that IGC is the home of civil society? Am I right? All the best, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Dec 6 20:06:24 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:06:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Users SIG on IDNA2010 In-Reply-To: References: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091207011703.C566091078@npogroups.org> http://iucg.org/wiki/BUD-IDNA2010 The WG/IDNABIS work being conducted on IDNA2008 (i.e. the new standard for Internationalized Domain Names) is now completed. As committed, the IUCG plans to publish an "IDNA2010 Best Usage Document" in order to explain to users how to best take advantage from the IDNA proposition and extensions. The WG text has been reviewed by the IETF/LC. Now, it has to be accepted by the IESG and should have then been deployed via several projects in the coming months. However, competition between these projects has already started. The workon at idna2010.org moderated mailing list created to that end has therefore been activated. We know that this matter is rather sensible. Therefore, the list is tyrannically moderated by its facilitator. Only technically worthy, and polite, contributions will be accepted. The target is not to publish an RFC that would standardize or recommend a practice. It is rather to document the different options that users may have and how they may use them. This will be the first time that such a multiconsensual document will be worked on at IUCG. We, therefore, expect the form of this work to also be experimental. The background is the following: * in a network architecture, multilingualization belongs to the presentation layer. * the Internet has no documented presentation layer. * yet the IDNA2008 proposition, even if not perfect, makes a lot of sense and builds on the IDNA2003 operational experience of half a billion users. * hence, the Internet presentation layer is underlying the IDNA2008 proposition. Therefore, the target is: 1. to uncover and document the Internet presentation layer. 2. to document IDNA within that presentation layer. 3. to explore the new possibilities offered by the presentation layer to IDNA and the Internet. This will be carried out in relation with the parallel work and testing being conducted on the Interplus usage architecture and ML-DNS pile. The only, but very strict, constraint that is imposed on this work is the full respect, down to the code, of the current Internet and a total transparence and neutrality to its end to end processes and services. The target is to use the Internet better. Multilinguistics is understood as the cybernetics of linguistic diversity. Multilingualization is understood as the multilinguistic function that is able to technically support an equal and neutral empowerment of every language and script. Neutrality is taken as being transparent to the technological, operational, and contextual, partial or complete, changes on the end to end path. Universalization is essentially independence from languages and scripts. Globalization is the internationalization of the media, localization of the ends, and langtagization of the content. Internationalization is the reduction of the linguistic bias down to the minimum that is permitted by the underlying language. Along the international usages, contributions will be accepted in the main languages, as soon as a moderator or a sergeant at arms has been designated for that respective language and, initially, in English and French. The convener and initial facilitator of this list is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc. To subscribe : http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org. IUCG Secretariat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Dec 6 20:09:33 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:09:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] SIG Utilisateurs Pilotes Internet sur IDNA2010 In-Reply-To: <20091017183030.105238919ptmmrza@webmail.imag.fr> References: <6FF5EB9924AB4AEBADCC4C771D5F4821@MTBJ> <20091017183030.105238919ptmmrza@webmail.imag.fr> Message-ID: <20091207011720.38317912F5@npogroups.org> Pour information pour répondre à Google, ICANN, i-DNs et Microsoft, selon une approche FLOSS claire, neutre et documentée, Du travail en perspective. jfc ------------------------------ http://iucg.org/wiki/BUD-IDNA2010 Le travail WG/IDNABIS effectué sur IDNA2008 (c'est-à-dire la nouvelle norme pour les Noms de Domaine "internationalisés") est maintenant terminé. Comme il s'y est engagé, l'IUCG a l'intention de publier un document de meilleur Usage "IDNA2010", afin d'expliquer aux utilisateurs comment mieux tirer parti de la proposition IDNA et de ses extensions. Le texte du WG a été examiné par l'IETF/LC. Il doit maintenant être accepté par le IESG et aurait du ensuite déployé par le biais de plusieurs projets dans les mois qui viennent. Cependant la compétition entre ces projets s'est déjà engagée. La liste de diffusion modérée workon at idna2010.org créée à cette fin a donc été activée. Nous savons que cette question est sensible. Par conséquent, la liste est tyranniquement modérée par son animateur. Seules les contributions techniquement valables et polies seront acceptées. Le but n'est pas de publier une RFC qui normaliserait ou recommanderait une pratique. Il est plutôt de documenter les différentes options que les utilisateurs peuvent avoir et comment ils peuvent les utiliser. Ce sera la première fois qu'un tel document multiconsensuel sera travaillé de cette façon à l'IUCG. Nous nous attendons par conséquent à ce que la forme de ce travail soit aussi expérimentale. L'arrière-plan est le suivant : * dans une architecture réseau, la multilingualisation relève de la couche présentation. * l'Internet n'a aucune couche de présentation documentée. * pourtant la proposition IDNA2008, même si elle n'est pas parfaite, prend beaucoup de sens et s'appuie sur l'expérience opérationnelle d'IDNA2003 par un demi-milliard d'utilisateurs. * par conséquent, la couche présentation Internet est sous-jacente à la proposition d'IDNA2008. Par conséquent, l'objectif est : 1. de découvrir et de documenter la couche présentation de l'Internet. 2. de documenter IDNA au sein de cette couche présentation. 3. d'explorer les nouvelles possibilités offertes à l'Internet par la couche présentation et IDNA . Cela se fera en relation avec le travail parallèle et les essais menés sur l'architecture de l'utilisation d'Interplus et de la pile ML-DNS. La seule, mais très stricte, contrainte imposée à ce travail est le plein respect, jusqu'au code, de l'Internet actuel et une totale transparence et neutralité pour ses services et processus de bout en bout. L'objectif est de mieux utiliser l'Internet. La Multilinguistique s'entend ici comme la cybernétique de la diversité linguistique. La Multilingualisation est comprise comme la fonction multilinguistique en mesure de soutenir techniquement une capacitation égale et neutre de chaque langue et écriture. La neutralité est considérée comme étant la transparence aux changements technologiques, opérationnels et contextuels, partiels ou complets, sur le chemin de bout en bout. L'universalisation est essentiellement une non-dépendance au langues et aux écritures. La globalization est l'internationalisation des médias, la localisation des extrémités et le marquage linguistique du contenu. L'internationalisation est la réduction de la partialité linguistique au minimum permis par la langue sous-jacente. Selon les usages internationaux, les contributions seront acceptées dans les langues principales, dès qu'un modérateur ou un sergent d'arme aura été désigné pour cette langue et, au départ, en français et en anglais. Le conveneur et modérateur initial de cette liste est Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc. Pour participer : http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org. Secrétariat IUCG ---------- http://iucg.org/wiki/BUD-IDNA2010 The WG/IDNABIS work being conducted on IDNA2008 (i.e. the new standard for Internationalized Domain Names) is now completed. As committed, the IUCG plans to publish an "IDNA2010 Best Usage Document" in order to explain to users how to best take advantage from the IDNA proposition and extensions. The WG text has been reviewed by the IETF/LC. Now, it has to be accepted by the IESG and should have then been deployed via several projects in the coming months. However, competition between these projects has already started. The workon at idna2010.org moderated mailing list created to that end has therefore been activated. We know that this matter is rather sensible. Therefore, the list is tyrannically moderated by its facilitator. Only technically worthy, and polite, contributions will be accepted. The target is not to publish an RFC that would standardize or recommend a practice. It is rather to document the different options that users may have and how they may use them. This will be the first time that such a multiconsensual document will be worked on at IUCG. We, therefore, expect the form of this work to also be experimental. The background is the following: * in a network architecture, multilingualization belongs to the presentation layer. * the Internet has no documented presentation layer. * yet the IDNA2008 proposition, even if not perfect, makes a lot of sense and builds on the IDNA2003 operational experience of half a billion users. * hence, the Internet presentation layer is underlying the IDNA2008 proposition. Therefore, the target is: 1. to uncover and document the Internet presentation layer. 2. to document IDNA within that presentation layer. 3. to explore the new possibilities offered by the presentation layer to IDNA and the Internet. This will be carried out in relation with the parallel work and testing being conducted on the Interplus usage architecture and ML-DNS pile. The only, but very strict, constraint that is imposed on this work is the full respect, down to the code, of the current Internet and a total transparence and neutrality to its end to end processes and services. The target is to use the Internet better. Multilinguistics is understood as the cybernetics of linguistic diversity. Multilingualization is understood as the multilinguistic function that is able to technically support an equal and neutral empowerment of every language and script. Neutrality is taken as being transparent to the technological, operational, and contextual, partial or complete, changes on the end to end path. Universalization is essentially independence from languages and scripts. Globalization is the internationalization of the media, localization of the ends, and langtagization of the content. Internationalization is the reduction of the linguistic bias down to the minimum that is permitted by the underlying language. Along the international usages, contributions will be accepted in the main languages, as soon as a moderator or a sergeant at arms has been designated for that respective language and, initially, in English and French. The convener and initial facilitator of this list is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc. To subscribe : http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org. IUCG Secretariat _______________________________________________ comptoir mailing list comptoir at cafedu.com http://cafedu.com/mailman/listinfo/comptoir_cafedu.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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Dec 6 20:30:25 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:30:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009401ca76dc$db143de0$913cb9a0$@com> Hi Fouad, Tracy Yes, the point about access is one that we always have to take into account. It's always really cool to use the newer and more full-featured technologies, but we must always remember the fact (and the reason we are here in IGF) that so much of the world does not have the access necessary to participate in the Internet world with all the bells and whistles. One solution that I have seen working in ICT4D groups is to use online forums and posts that automatically go to the mailing list, and vice versa. But we also still have to consider the SIZE of these messages, because as you indicated, it is still expensive and slow in many parts of the world (including in the Caribbean!). I am against the idea of paying dues. I think that volunteers in a group such as this do already donate by their time, expertise etc. (As well as considering the major issues with receiving funds as a caucus, and from different parts of the world, in different currencies) I'm also concerned about the idea of getting IGC support from the IGF Secretariat for 2 reasons - 1 - the Secretariat doesn't usually have a lot of funding, and does support civil society in general for participation at the meetings and so on, but I think that supporting the caucus itself might be beyond and 2) Financial support tends to take us into a realm of considering the "funder's" agenda when we are looking to develop our position, and I would really hate to lose the independence and diversity of opinion and thought we have here now. I love Kati's idea about increasing our caucus document production and I think that's definitely an area that we can work on very soon and relatively easily. I'm interested in ideas to expand the reach and membership of the IGC, but I'm leery of implementing ideas which will lead to reduction in diversity, increased difficulty for equal participation by ALL, and possible reduced independence. My $0.02 Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2009 07:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] IGC My two cents on this: * This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as criticism, please! Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near future. But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps. This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly, some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively. Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet! I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter provides us with. I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put as an example. I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!! I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed. All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a community to carry out a number of collective activities with regards to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general. My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat. I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings, those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for IGC!!! Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!! On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hi everyone: > I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, > because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own > experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a > wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and > concise LSE definition of this dilemma > at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.h tm): > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's > brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted > Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on > Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging > solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such > as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust > solution is desirable. > 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a physical > "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a > series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely > slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more > diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 > meetings/conferences. > 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC membership > can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if > (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone > considerations aside. > 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate > financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the > existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model > is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide > support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 were > presented. > Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of >> organization. >> >>  It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, >> among many other factors. >> >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, >> and defend all with the same passion. >> >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. >> >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move >> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do >> it if we want to be effective. >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Katitza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 20:42:26 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:42:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a301ca76de$891480c0$9b3d8240$@com> Hi Tracy As a member of several Ning communities, I'd like to say that straight membership numbers are not really a good indicator of the vibrancy of a group - lots of people join and visit very rarely and post even more rarely. Ning's notifications aren't great, in that they do work very hard to get you to visit the site to keep updated,( and the mobile site shows up poorly on my phones) as opposed to sending the content of the update via the email notification, so that people can keep up with the discussion without having to visit the site. So I'd love to see some data on how many of the 646 people have posted, how often they access/read the posts and discussions etc. and compare with the activity on the mailing list to really compare apples and apples. I'm a total social network person, but I've found that they do not work well for many situations, and we always need to look at the needs, audience and objectives before talking about changing the tools. Jacqueline From: Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google [mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2009 07:59 PM To: Fouad Bajwa Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] IGC *Ditto about the criticism comment. All views are to be welcomed. Surely. :0) I am also not sure why it was necessary to refer to my current employment in your response. In any event and with a view to full disclosure, so as to avoid any misunderstanding, I have been involved with the using and promoting the use of Internet since my days as a student and Researcher at University (1993-1997) and have been involved with my current Government job as a civil/public servant from 2005 designing and implementing projects relating to digital inclusion and improving the lives of the citizens of Trinidad & Tobago through the use of ICT. Now, first of all, I am confused about the statements that the discussions on improving the effectiveness of the IGC should somehow be subsumed under the IGF threads (again difficult to achieve with a limited mailing list format unless your email platform has an extremely effective search facility). When last I read it, para 72 of the Tunis agenda expressly states that the IGF is multi-stakeholder - NOT Civil Society focused. I refer specifically to: "... Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body." Ginger's suggestion of starting new threads with these improvements in mind is perhaps more useful to achieve the objective. Secondly, at last count from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E I recognize that the IGC has approximately 150 members on the mailing list. As a comparative example, Diplo's recently initiated Ning community has 646 members with over 50 subject-specific sub-groups. If Diplo were to solicit an average annual voluntary donation of US$10 (less than US$1 per month) from its membership for 1 year they could collect approx. US$6,460. Imagine now if they used those funds to do effective outreach and recruitment, open up the discussion platform even further and therefore triple their membership for example ... The cold, hard question that needs to be asked is the status quo a critical mass to move forward or does the IGC want or should I say need to grow and raise its profile in order to become a louder, more vibrant voice - representing as one group, for example, the interests of the very low-income, grassroots members they are mandated to AS WELL AS Digital Natives? I have examined the IGC Charter again and for the purposes of the discussion nothing stated there expressly limits consideration and indeed, implementation of suggestions designed to grow and evolve the IGC into what it is destined to become. As a matter of fact, my own interpretation of several clauses of the Charter seems to suggest that the IGC should be doing more than what currently obtains. And, on a technological note, Fouad, proper implementation of a social networking platform can cater for all users - including those who prefer to use a mailing list, or WAP, or SMS alerts, or even Fax - this is done via the implementation of full alerting and posting directly via <> to the platform - the WWW being just one view of the network - as a matter of fact, this is desirable. Web 2.0 and Social Networking as we know is BOTH active/passive, as well as proactive & reactive hence its beauty, popularity, and effectiveness. Its power, when used wisely is unmistakable. On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: My two cents on this: * This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as criticism, please! Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near future. But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps. This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly, some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively. Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet! I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter provides us with. I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put as an example. I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!! I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed. All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a community to carry out a number of collective activities with regards to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general. My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat. I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings, those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for IGC!!! Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!! On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hi everyone: > I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before, > because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own > experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a > wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and > concise LSE definition of this dilemma > at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm) : > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format > towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration > platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's > brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted > Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on > Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging > solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such > as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust > solution is desirable. > 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a physical > "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a > series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely > slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more > diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010 > meetings/conferences. > 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC membership > can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if > (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone > considerations aside. > 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate > financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the > existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model > is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide > support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011 were > presented. > Mobilize. Grow. Prosper. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of >> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of >> organization. >> >> It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the >> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC can >> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that were >> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It should >> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the >> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done, >> among many other factors. >> >> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care >> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care about, >> and defend all with the same passion. >> >> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every >> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each workshop >> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some >> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group? >> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111 >> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two >> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we >> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share >> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on >> the issues that civil society participants cares about. >> >> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move >> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should do >> it if we want to be effective. >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Katitza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 6 20:43:53 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:43:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b101ca76de$bcefa640$36cef2c0$@com> Janna I agree with you on that - I've found the same in my experience. Jacqueline From: Janna Anderson [mailto:andersj at elon.edu] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2009 08:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Fouad Bajwa Cc: Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] IGC FYI, Based on my personal experience, people are willing to sign up for group sites like those offered by organizations such as IGF-USA and Diplo, but they do not actively participate in these groups. Noting the number of people who have signed up for such a group is in no way a measure of its efficacy. I am one of the administrators for the IGF-USA Ning site. The only action we see on it other than people joining is action we force by requiring people to post - such as requiring that they prepare and post information on presentations for the Oct. 2 meeting of IGF-USA last fall. Most people still do business by e-mail, and we found with IGF-USA that people joined Ning and then ignored it and just communicated on e-mail lists. I could be all wrong, but it seems as if most conversations of a political nature among highly involved Internet stakeholders still happen mostly by e-mail. Janna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Dec 6 22:44:54 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:14:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1C7A36.10402@itforchange.net> Dear Ian thanks for all your efforts!! and hope minus the co-coordinatorship role, you will plunge into IG/IGC with even more energies. warm regards Guru Ian Peter wrote: > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 23:03:35 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:03:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <4B1ABD83.6080502@gmail.com> References: <20766138.12542.1259934186968.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e05> <495127.64088.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4B1ABD83.6080502@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello I want to participate too. Rafik 2009/12/6 Ginger Paque > By now, most of you should have had a chance to read: ICANNs Strategic > Plan 2010 - 2013. > > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > (note that the .pdf file was posted to the list by Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan). > > Wolfgang suggested that the IGC write a comment. The comment period is open > until January 21, 2010. See > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec09-en.htm > > What do you think? Is there a group of people interested, willing and able > in proposing an IGC comment? > > Wolfgang? > > Ginger > > Mohammad Ziaul Ahsan wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jean-Louis FULLSACK > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; KleinwächterWolfgang > > *Sent:* Fri, December 4, 2009 7:43:06 PM > *Subject:* re: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 > > Thanks Wolfgang > > but I couldn't open the link to the strategic plan. > > Concerning ICANN's "successful participation" to the ITU Plenipo there are > imho only two possibilities > - the ICANN is a sector member of the ITU > - ICANN is officially invited by the ITU (SG and/or Council) > Let's wait for further information and more precise reasons on the meaning > of this probably "non event" > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 03/12/09 22:53 > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 > > > > > > I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan > 2010 - 2013. > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > > > BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, > inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) > > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 23:15:48 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:15:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> On 07/12/2009, at 5:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list > format towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & > Collaboration platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and > Giani Bianchini's brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to > the somewhat restricted Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment > of appropriate IGC presences on Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will > also be useful. Utilization of emerging solutions such as Google > Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such as Social Text, > Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust solution is > desirable. It's a good suggestion, however apart from the other reservations that have been expressed about this, I would not like to see us move to a proprietary hosted platform, which could compromise our independence. Sympa is open source software which can be hosted anywhere by anyone, so if we want to migrate the list including all its archives to another server at no cost, we can easily do so. It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the IGF for switching to a proprietary Web conferencing system, WebEx, over the open source one DimDim that was used last year. -- 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Dec 6 23:26:54 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:26:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I think, this list is sympa. http://npogroups.org/lists/help/ On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 07/12/2009, at 5:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > >> 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list >> format towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & >> Collaboration platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and >> Giani Bianchini's brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to >> the somewhat restricted Facebook, Orkut, and the like. >> Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on Twitter, Scribd and >> YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging solutions such >> as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such as >> Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust >> solution is desirable. > > It's a good suggestion, however apart from the other reservations > that have been expressed about this, I would not like to see us move > to a proprietary hosted platform, which could compromise our > independence. Sympa is open source software which can be hosted > anywhere by anyone, so if we want to migrate the list including all > its archives to another server at no cost, we can easily do so. > It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the IGF for > switching to a proprietary Web conferencing system, WebEx, over the > open source one DimDim that was used last year. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 23:32:23 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:32:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 07/12/2009, at 12:26 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I think, this list is sympa. > > http://npogroups.org/lists/help/ Yes, that was my point. -- 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 avri at acm.org Mon Dec 7 00:18:29 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 06:18:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51D29119-5396-4D15-8FAD-980C9F02A195@acm.org> On 7 Dec 2009, at 05:15, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the IGF for switching to a proprietary Web conferencing system, WebEx, over the open source one DimDim that was used last year. The decision of what software to use for remote communications has been a host country decision. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 7 03:53:35 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:53:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70912061503h70a74d4dq56e01d77ccdece05@mail.gmail.com> <808a83f60912061558h6368abfakd2f9012625073514@mail.gmail.com> <3B48E403-81DC-468A-B72E-6F6D2431CFF7@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87198C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Katitza you are right. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org] Gesendet: Mo 07.12.2009 02:03 An: Google Cc: Fouad Bajwa; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC Dear all: I am now confused. Now, first of all, I am confused about the statements that the discussions on improving the effectiveness of the IGC should somehow be subsumed under the IGF threads (again difficult to achieve with a limited mailing list format unless your email platform has an extremely effective search facility). When last I read it, para 72 of the Tunis agenda expressly states that the IGF is multi-stakeholder - NOT Civil Society focused. I refer specifically to: "... Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body." Ginger's suggestion of starting new threads with these improvements in mind is perhaps more useful to achieve the objective. I understand that the IGF is a multi stakeholder dialogue but I understand that IGC is the home of civil society? Am I right? All the best, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 04:44:08 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:44:08 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87198A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> <20091203190520.D052F92158@npogroups.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87198A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <701af9f70912070144m1c429af1gad32313291de474f@mail.gmail.com> Count me in too! 2009/12/4 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > I would recommend that the IGC writes a comment on ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013. > > http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.pdf > > BTW, under "Contribute to a healthy Internet Eco-System" ICANNs plan is, inter alia, "successful participation in the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference". Good point, but what does it mean? :-)))) > > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 7 05:25:28 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:25:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <51D29119-5396-4D15-8FAD-980C9F02A195@acm.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> <51D29119-5396-4D15-8FAD-980C9F02A195@acm.org> Message-ID: <1E008B8E-E6AA-44FD-8249-7100398F146B@ciroap.org> On 07/12/2009, at 1:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 7 Dec 2009, at 05:15, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the IGF for >> switching to a proprietary Web conferencing system, WebEx, over the >> open source one DimDim that was used last year. > > The decision of what software to use for remote communications has > been a host country decision. Yes, but it shouldn't be. It should be something into which we all have input, and it shouldn't change from year to year so that there is no possibility to form a continuing online community around the IGF. This is part of a list of recommendations I've made previously, encompassing institutional, technical and social improvements: Institutional ------------- * It should be possible to register as an IGF stakeholder without attending a meeting in person * Rather than the IGF's plenary activity being limited to an annual meeting that meeting should cap a programme of online intersessional work * The official Web site should be unified or closely integrated with community and host country resources * Data from the official IGF Web site should be programmatically accessible and tagged for reuse: - User registration details - Calendar of events - Live transcripts - Dynamic coalitions - Stakeholder contributions * Funding should be sought for online resources just as it is allocated for the annual meeting Technical --------- * Unified registration system for IGF annual meetings, sub-events and IGF online resources * Rich ACL providing roles for Secretariat, Advisory Group, Dynamic Coalitions and others * Registration details can be shared with community Web sites and events using OpenSocial API * RSS+Dublin Core metadata engine to unify data from official and community sources * Multi-modal online participation should be facilitated where possible (eg. email, Web, RSS) * Unified set of themes for IGF sites (differentiating between official and community resources) * Engine to gate live transcripts to IRC, Jabber, Second Life, etc * Event information made available in iCalendar format * All workshops and events to have access to integrated online fora * Extension and unification of existing facilities for asynchronous and synchronous discussion * Extension of existing facilities for collaborative editing (eg. add polling support) Social ------ * Appointed volunteer rapporteurs to bridge online and offline fora * Outreach programme to existing online communities of Internet users * Capacity building for government stakeholders in the use of online resources These are the kind of thing we could add into our recommendations on the structural reform of the IGF, though as nobody has responded to the questions I sent to the list I'm not sure that there's much interest in putting such recommendations forward. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 05:43:02 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:13:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] ICANNs Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912070144m1c429af1gad32313291de474f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2B9E33851F19424AB71513A44A8892A4@userPC> <20091203190520.D052F92158@npogroups.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87198A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f70912070144m1c429af1gad32313291de474f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B1CDC36.7060904@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 Mon Dec 7 06:19:01 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:49:01 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> References: <9C0A88A2-4DAB-4FF7-8C83-2C36DC704316@datos-personales.org> <808a83f60912061356u3e36ec87v6d5b981d58217412@mail.gmail.com> <399A9B8A-9827-4C84-A021-6F9CB31B519E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B1CE4A5.4070407@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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Dec 7 08:24:25 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:24:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Tim McGinnis 2010 Message-ID: I would like to endorse Tim McGinnis for Co-Coordinator, His active participation in Africa, both on the Day-to-Day on the ground and in the AfriNIC, AfrICANN , AfrISPA, Internet Politico Scope along with his engagement of this mail list, demonstrates his commitment and a strong conviction to Society. In addition I belive he will be the most successful Delegate for the IGC at IGF2010 Vilnjus Lithuania. Tim McGinnis 2010 - Candidates: Post Ranking per Internet Governance Groups 1. | Tim McGinnis, a.k.a. McTim : dogwallah at gmail.com 2. | Jeremy Malcolm: jeremy at ciroap.org 3. | Fouad Bajwa: fouadbajwa at gmail.com 4. | Rafik Dammak: rafik.dammak at gmail.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 7 13:29:44 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:29:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term In-Reply-To: <4B1C7A36.10402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Guru and everyone else for your kind thoughts and comments. They are much appreciated. Ian From: Guru गुरु Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:14:54 +0530 To: , Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming elections and the end of my term Dear Ian thanks for all your efforts!!  and hope minus the co-coordinatorship role, you will plunge into IG/IGC with even more energies. warm regards Guru Ian Peter wrote: > > Seeing the election begins Monday, and my term as Co coordinator ends as > soon as the election is over, perhaps I ought to say a few words before I > disappear into the sunset. > > Firstly, I am so pleased to see an excellent field of candidates to replace > me. To Fouad, McTim, Jeremy, and Rafik, I wish you all well in the election, > and IGC is richer because you have all offered to stand and to take on co > coordinator tasks. > > What I can tell you is that, whoever is elected, you will have my personal > full support. You will also have the support of many other members of the > Caucus, who I know from personal experience are only to pleased to offer > help where needed and to assist a co coordinator during difficult times. > > You will also have the privilege to work with Ginger Paque, who during the > last year has made a truly great co coordinator and someone only too willing > to make efforts to make IGC successful. It was my privilege to work with > Ginger, and before that with Parminder, both of whom were strong, competent, > and great to work with. You can be sure that in taking on the tasks of a co > coordinator you will have an excellent partner as well as excellent support. > > So I wish you all the best, and look forward to the results when they are > announced in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, it has been my pleasure > and an honour to work with IGC as a Co coordinator for the last couple of > years, and, much though I am glad to be relieved of the duties, I very much > treasure the experiences I had during my term of office and the experiences > of working with the Internet Governance Caucus. I will enjoy staying > involved in a more minor way. > > And to the voters ­ to me the qualities you should seek are dedication, > wisdom, an ability to encompass and include differing points of view, and a > commitment to civil society involvement in internet governance. I am sure > there are other qualities as well, but these stand out for me personally. > And I am pleased that among the candidates all of these exist! > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 18:50:34 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members Message-ID: <701af9f70912071550i5fcb3d33h4468be3dccce7ad5@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the world around including any meeting regional or international that I attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or academia. However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their governments and companies? I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank you in advance for your comments! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 18:54:59 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:54:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for papers from students on human rights and new technologies Message-ID: <701af9f70912071554x5c38d7a3ydbbe019ad3bddec2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Members, This may be of key interest to our members especially on issues related to Human Rights and Internet Governance so kindly distribute this call where you feel is necessary. A special thanks to Bailey Grey for sharing this conference call: Call for papers: Human rights issues concerning new technologies "New Technologies: Your Life? Your Health? Your Privacy? Our Human Rights" is the title of the 2010 Annual Student Human Rights Conference to be held at the University of Nottingham on Saturday 20 March 2010. The Annual Student Human Rights Conference provides students with an opportunity to present their research to an international audience alongside leading practitioners, scholars and experts. The 2010 conference will explore the inter-relation between human rights and the global consequences of the advancement of new technologies. By encouraging multi-disciplinary participation, the conference seeks to reaffirm the necessity of incorporating human rights discourse when discussing the controversial nature of the science and technology domain. This conference aims to discuss a number of human rights issues concerning new technologies. For example, what is the potential for interference with our right to privacy, not only in relation to our health but also to our security? What are the implications of the universality of rights when considering the level of technological development in the affluent north in comparison to developing countries? Will debates on bioethics strengthen human rights protection or replace them? What are the positive and negative impacts of assisted reproductive technologies? How can information and communication technologies be used to advance and protect human rights? How do we rectify the dichotomy between security interests and civil liberties and the need for caution when dealing with emerging technologies? This is just the tip of the new technologies and human rights iceberg, by addressing these and other issues the conference wishes to explore the balance between technological advancement and its impact on human rights standards. Papers are welcome on the subject of human rights in relation to one of the following themes: New technologies and: - Bioethics and Human Rights - Health Technologies and Human Rights - New Technologies and the Right to Privacy - Information and Communication Technologies and Human Rights - Nanotechnology, Satellites and/or Weapons and Human Rights - Emerging Technologies and Human Rights - Using Technology to Advance Human Rights The Conference Committee encourages submissions of papers from students in any discipline on any of the above themes. Authors of selected papers will be offered the opportunity to discuss their work in panels which will take place as part of the conference, alongside leading practitioners and academics working in the field. Applications are open to university students in any discipline enrolled at a recognised university. Papers and presentations should be in English. Submission Details: Using the application form available on the website, please provide a short abstract of no more than 500 words by Sunday 10 January 2010, clearly stating the authors postal address, email, phone number and institution. The abstract should be submitted electronically to the following address: HumanRightsConference at nottingham.ac.uk For further information, please see the Events page of HRLC website: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 7 19:16:56 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:16:56 +1100 Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912071550i5fcb3d33h4468be3dccce7ad5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Fouad, There are two things here. Firstly the discussion on the list here has always been open to anyone. I think personally that is a good thing and we should encourage more non civil society people to post here are share their views with us. The discourse on a more open list would I think be very valuable. So in terms of discussion and presence on list, I think there should be no requirements or restriction based on status. That I think is a good way for us to be. But as regards membership. Our Charter states clearly: "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." I personally see nothing in the Charter that prohibits a government employee, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Barack Obama, Osama Bin Laden or anyone being a member providing they subscribe to the charter. I also see nothing in the Charter that says a government employee, private sector employee, or entrepreneur should be treated differently to any other member should they choose to affirm the Charter. Perhaps it should be different, but to my reading it isn¹t. That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you raise in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and has happened in the past. I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue with governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future. Ian > From: Fouad Bajwa > Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 > To: > Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members > > Dear all, > > I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding > membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the > world around including any meeting regional or international that I > attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation > network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or > academia. > > However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil > Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government > representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal > capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the > IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as > participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take > their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their > governments and companies? > > I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank > you in advance for your comments! > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 7 21:50:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:50:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <881728.57713.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As one with a generally different point of view regarding activity on this list and membership, I think that Ian is spot on.  The interest in my mind would simply be to "codify" or make certain this inclusive and fair minded approach.    I think that the major players involved in Internet Governance are a bit too elitist and benevolent dictator types for me.  I would like to see direct and large scale voting and polling on even the slightest of issues and representation.  But the way this list and group, as a group have behaved is very clearly open and inviting to individual positions and out of the box thinking.  Say no more than they welcome even me.   All this congratulatory back slapping around here drives me nuts.  But truth be told, Ian has done a great job keeping the membership and list participation open and diverse. The rules can always be bent to meet an agenda -- Ian has stayed on course only bending them in the direction of good governance.   Your a very good outreach person, Fouad, please keep it up.   Eric --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 12:16 AM Hi Fouad, There are two things here. Firstly the discussion on the list here has always been open to anyone. I think personally that is a good thing and we should encourage more non civil society people to post here are share their views with us. The discourse on a more open list would I think be very valuable. So in terms of discussion and presence on list, I think there should be no requirements or restriction based on status. That I think is a good way for us to be. But as regards membership. Our Charter states clearly: "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." I personally see nothing in the Charter that prohibits a government employee, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Barack Obama, Osama Bin Laden or anyone being a member providing they subscribe to the charter. I also see nothing in the Charter that says a government employee, private sector employee, or entrepreneur should be treated differently to any other member should they choose to affirm the Charter. Perhaps it should be different, but to my reading it isn¹t. That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you raise in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and has happened in the past. I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue with governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future. Ian > From: Fouad Bajwa > Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 > To: > Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members > > Dear all, > > I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding > membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the > world around including any meeting regional or international that I > attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation > network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or > academia. > > However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil > Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government > representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal > capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the > IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as > participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take > their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their > governments and companies? > > I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank > you in advance for your comments! > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 05:06:41 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:36:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Information: Ballot is in Process Message-ID: <4B1E2531.6060106@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 8 07:33:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:33:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <4B1CE4A5.4070407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <652985.58993.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger,   I very much support and endorse mass participation.  I am adamant about open membership. But with that said; I agree wholeheartedly that this forum should mainly be one of attraction and not promotion.   Eric --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] IGC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 11:19 AM Excellent discussion... Thanks everyone. The mailing list is now "Powered by electric Embers using the NPO Groups version of Sympa 5.3.4" I personally find the mailing list format to be very effective. Ning in particular requires that you go to the website to read any post, which I find very irritating and difficult if I do not have a good connection. One thing we need to do is make better use of the IGCaucus website as a resource with documents, links and other information. This will help the cross-document organization that Katitza and Jacqueline have commented on. That quite simple to do and I will work with the new co-coordinator and any volunteers to do this over the December holidays. I am not at all convinced that we want to increase the membership of the IGC, or move "into the mainstream". I think we need both our active, vocal members, and our quite readers, but definitely emphasizing quality over quantity. If we are having substantive discussions, and working well, we will attract the members we want. I know that goes against the current thinking about social networking, but I think we should keep that in mind. Invite individuals who might be interested: yes.  But some kind public campaign? I would be very cautious about that. Note: our mailing list numbers are much higher than our actual membership due to inactive accounts and duplicate email subscriptions for some members who prefer to receive mailings at multiple addresses. On several levels I object to a membership "fee". On a practical level, Venezuela has a very strict foreign exchange control, so 50 cents or ten dollars is a problem for me, which makes me aware of the logistical and personal problem this can generate for others as well. On a theoretical level, I also object. I think it somehow changes the character of the membership and the "entry barrier" of the group. I do like Tracy's (and Katitza's) basic idea of a more organized, possibly funded IGC. Ian has proposed this possibility several time, but we have not yet found a workable structure for this. I think this discussion is a good way to explore options. Thanks, everyone! Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 07/12/2009, at 5:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences on Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions such as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust solution is desirable. It's a good suggestion, however apart from the other reservations that have been expressed about this, I would not like to see us move to a proprietary hosted platform, which could compromise our independence. Sympa is open source software which can be hosted anywhere by anyone, so if we want to migrate the list including all its archives to another server at no cost, we can easily do so.  It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the IGF for switching to a proprietary Web conferencing system, WebEx, over the open source one DimDim that was used last year. -----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 Tue Dec 8 07:46:48 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:46:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <652985.58993.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <652985.58993.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > I do like Tracy's (and Katitza's) basic idea of a more organized, > possibly funded IGC. Ian has proposed this possibility several time, > but we have not yet found a workable structure for this. I think > this discussion is a good way to explore options. Short clarification: I did not talked about the possible funded IGC. Jacqueline also addressed very good points. Best, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 8 07:48:30 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Voting Rights and Duties Message-ID: <877575.7451.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> To all subscribers, participants and members.   I subscribed and did not join for some time.  I take it very seriously. It is not good to join unless one spends the time and effort to become informed and agrees in principle to continue to learn.  It is axiomatic that one learns the rules and objectives* before taking a voting share. Those blessed with knowledge, time and passion,, once a member,, must participate in some way.   All the candidates have demonstrated a passion for work in this field and a capacity to serve.  It is our duty as members to learn of them.  I am proud to have voted and been counted. I am certain that the person with the most votes will be seated.  I am equally certain that the job will require much more of that person than what is currently anticipated.   Thank you all who have served in the past to keep this list, forum and objectives alive and moving forward.  Because you stand and are counted our world is a better place.   Eric     * The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to: * Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. * Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance policies from a civil society perspective. * Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security. * Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums involved with Internet governance policies. * For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions. * Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC. * Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed projects and policies towards better Internet governance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 8 07:52:48 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:52:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <51879.5093.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If we accept direct funding we must first put in place, persons whose function it is to prevent bias in favor of the source of funding. --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Short clarification: I did not talked about the possible funded IGC. Jacqueline also addressed very good points. Best, Katitza   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Dec 8 07:58:04 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:58:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <51879.5093.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <51879.5093.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <12535496-A0F0-42EE-8F45-C04EA69905FB@datos-personales.org> True. I can imagine a few corporations willing to fund IGC...... On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > If we accept direct funding we must first put in place, persons > whose function it is to prevent bias in favor of the source of > funding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 07:59:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:29:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Juxtaposition of privacy comments (compiled from the IRP list) Message-ID: <4B1E4DA1.1040801@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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 08:50:53 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:50:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: <652985.58993.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60912080550y5ba5c3dcoc8529ffdfcbe827b@mail.gmail.com> Further clarification ... my suggestions regarding Member contributions should not be read as dues or fees - but rather, voluntary donations as per the successful Wikipedia model. In other words, if you want to and can, feel free - donate as little or as much as you want - no strings attached. If don't want to, or can't, no stress. With respect to funding for the IGC directly from, for example, the UNOG (IGF Secretariat) I do personally think that funding of this nature would help better structure the IGC and afford it the ability to perhaps consider implementation of a small project or two which will treat with, "Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed projects and policies towards better Internet governance." (source: IGC Charter) for example. Best, Tracy On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > > I do like Tracy's (and Katitza's) basic idea of a more organized, possibly > funded IGC. Ian has proposed this possibility several time, but we have not > yet found a workable structure for this. I think this discussion is a good > way to explore options. > > > > Short clarification: I did not talked about the possible funded > IGC. Jacqueline also addressed very good points. > > Best, > Katitza > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Dec 8 09:14:00 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:14:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912080550y5ba5c3dcoc8529ffdfcbe827b@mail.gmail.com> References: <652985.58993.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <808a83f60912080550y5ba5c3dcoc8529ffdfcbe827b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Funding is needed. I agree. There is lot of work to do in IGC. I also thought that eric's comments were pertinent too. The voluntary donation is also a good idea. There might be nice projects to be implemented too. Online Remote Participation can be one of those projects, for example. Your UNOG ideas seems interesting too. However, as far as I know there are not enough funding for the Secretariat to carry out its own activities. On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Further clarification ... my suggestions regarding Member > contributions should not be read as dues or fees - but rather, > voluntary donations as per the successful Wikipedia model. In other > words, if you want to and can, feel free - donate as little or as > much as you want - no strings attached. If don't want to, or can't, > no stress. > > With respect to funding for the IGC directly from, for example, the > UNOG (IGF Secretariat) I do personally think that funding of this > nature would help better structure the IGC and afford it the ability > to perhaps consider implementation of a small project or two which > will treat with, > > "Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed > projects and policies towards better Internet governance." (source: > IGC Charter) > > for example. > > Best, > > Tracy > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 8 17:33:30 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:33:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f60912080550y5ba5c3dcoc8529ffdfcbe827b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <254730.95867.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Both these models make sense.  Personal investment is a huge psychological field of study -- because it is very time proven and fairly accurate for a social science.  When we invest time, energy or funds or our hearts we are far more likely to commit to success.   Any funding source that is primarily interested in the internal structure of IGC related groups would seem to be the best shot at non-interference with external focused discussion and "papers".  I would hope that some concerns regarding the governance of the group most involved with IT governance would be attractive for structural focused contribution. --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: From: Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Subject: Re: [governance] IGC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 1:50 PM Further clarification ... my suggestions regarding Member contributions should not be read as dues or fees - but rather, voluntary donations as per the successful Wikipedia model. In other words, if you want to and can, feel free - donate as little or as much as you want - no strings attached. If don't want to, or can't, no stress. With respect to funding for the IGC directly from, for example, the UNOG (IGF Secretariat) I do personally think that funding of this nature would help better structure the IGC and afford it the ability to perhaps consider implementation of a small project or two which will treat with,  "Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed projects and policies towards better Internet governance." (source: IGC Charter) for example.  Best, Tracy On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: I do like Tracy's (and Katitza's) basic idea of a more organized, possibly funded IGC. Ian has proposed this possibility several time, but we have not yet found a workable structure for this. I think this discussion is a good way to explore options. Short clarification: I did not talked about the possible funded IGC. Jacqueline also addressed very good points. Best, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 20:59:31 2009 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:59:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] an engaged electronic citizenry Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20091208175820.0270abf0@peoplewho.org> Government, citizenry, and social networks - small and large things to think about http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/roundtable/web2.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 04:35:13 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:35:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] about my name Message-ID: can you correct my name in member list,please, From BADOUIN to BAUDOUIN friendly -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 9 05:18:01 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:48:01 -0430 Subject: [governance] about my name--Any other corrections? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1F7959.7090804@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 9 09:55:11 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:55:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] an engaged electronic citizenry In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20091208175820.0270abf0@peoplewho.org> Message-ID: <179946.86955.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Would not it seem to everyone that these high standards referred to in this approach should at least be applicable to leaders in an IG forum? --- On Wed, 12/9/09, Sylvia Caras wrote: From: Sylvia Caras Subject: [governance] an engaged electronic citizenry To: "IGF Governance" Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 1:59 AM Government, citizenry, and social networks - small and large things to think about http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/roundtable/web2.html -----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 a.beccalli at unesco.org Thu Dec 10 12:07:18 2009 From: a.beccalli at unesco.org (Beccalli, Andrea) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:07:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNESCO CI News: "UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet" Message-ID: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Dear list members, An important event took place today towards enhanced cooperation in Internet governance. Best regards, Andrea Beccalli Associate Expert Information Society Division Communication and Information Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris cedex 15 Tel: +33(0)1 45 68 42 87 a.beccalli at unesco.org Having trouble reading this newsletter? Click Here to see it in your browser. Contacts Roni Amelan, UNESCO, Bureau of Public Information Source UNESCO Press Release No. 2009-150 Related links UNESCO News Service Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Related news 06-06-2008 UNESCO encourages Governments to participate in the next meeting of ICANN UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet Rod Beckstrom and Irina Bokova © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès 10-12-2009 (Paris) A significant step was taken on 10 December 2009 towards greater linguistic diversity on the Internet when UNESCO signed an agreement with ICANN - the body that assigns online addresses to Internet users - to help put into operation the first multilingual domain names. The cooperation agreement follows the recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to introduce IDNs, or Internationalized Domain Names, in non-Latin script. Until now, domain names in Internet addresses (for example .org, .com) were written using characters from the Latin alphabet exclusively. On November 16, in the first phase of the plan, ICANN began accepting requests from representatives of countries and territories around the world for new country codes in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts. Non-Latin script users will eventually have access to internet addresses completely in their own language. Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, welcomed ICANN's move to introduce IDNs. "This is a development that UNESCO has long been advocating. The Internet must be linguistically diverse so that all language groups can harness its unique potential," she said. "Through this new agreement, UNESCO and ICANN will work together to bring more people into the information network." The President of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom, described the importance of this change to the global Internet community: "Over half the Internet users around the world don't use a Latin-based script as their native language. IDNs are about making the Internet more global and accessible for everyone." The UNESCO-ICANN agreement covers a variety of cooperation areas so that the new development can benefit as many language groups as possible. UNESCO will notably call upon its network of linguistic experts to help in the process; inform Member States about the new IDNs; encourage involvement of other relevant United Nations agencies; and establish working groups to help developing and least-developed countries participate fully. UNESCO is a key contributor to the Internet governance debate. During the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 and 2005, and the following four editions of the Internet Governance Forum, UNESCO promoted the international community's endorsement of four basic principles for the creation of "knowledge societies": freedom of expression; quality education for all; universal access to information and knowledge; and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. Rod Beckstrom and Irina Bokova with representatives of UNESCO and ICANN © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès Rod Beckstrom, President of ICANN, Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, during the signature of the agreement © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès This email was sent to [a.beccalli at unesco.org] Click Here to instantly unsubscribe. Click Here to change your preferences. Communication and Information Sector 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France + 33.1.4568 4243 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mazzone at ebu.ch Thu Dec 10 13:31:38 2009 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:31:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: UNESCO CI News: "UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet" In-Reply-To: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> References: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CEDCDB36119@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Ottimo Andrea. Bel colpo. Sono fiero di te.... Giacomo PS: ma chi sono gli altri nella foto fra te e Beckstrom ? Fanno solo che confusione: potevate restare solo voi due... N'est ce pas ? From: Beccalli, Andrea [mailto:a.beccalli at unesco.org] Sent: jeudi, 10. décembre 2009 18:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] UNESCO CI News: "UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet" Dear list members, An important event took place today towards enhanced cooperation in Internet governance. Best regards, Andrea Beccalli Associate Expert Information Society Division Communication and Information Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris cedex 15 Tel: +33(0)1 45 68 42 87 a.beccalli at unesco.org Having trouble reading this newsletter? Click Here to see it in your browser. [http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/TEMPLATE/images/newsletter/heading_en.gif] Contacts Roni Amelan, UNESCO, Bureau of Public Information Source UNESCO Press Release No. 2009-150 Related links UNESCO News Service Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Related news 06-06-2008 UNESCO encourages Governments to participate in the next meeting of ICANN UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet [http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/29372/12604541623news_101209_icann_1.jpg/news_101209_icann_1.jpg] Rod Beckstrom and Irina Bokova © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès 10-12-2009 (Paris) A significant step was taken on 10 December 2009 towards greater linguistic diversity on the Internet when UNESCO signed an agreement with ICANN - the body that assigns online addresses to Internet users - to help put into operation the first multilingual domain names. The cooperation agreement follows the recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to introduce IDNs, or Internationalized Domain Names, in non-Latin script. Until now, domain names in Internet addresses (for example .org, .com) were written using characters from the Latin alphabet exclusively. On November 16, in the first phase of the plan, ICANN began accepting requests from representatives of countries and territories around the world for new country codes in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts. Non-Latin script users will eventually have access to internet addresses completely in their own language. Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, welcomed ICANN's move to introduce IDNs. "This is a development that UNESCO has long been advocating. The Internet must be linguistically diverse so that all language groups can harness its unique potential," she said. "Through this new agreement, UNESCO and ICANN will work together to bring more people into the information network." The President of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom, described the importance of this change to the global Internet community: "Over half the Internet users around the world don't use a Latin-based script as their native language. IDNs are about making the Internet more global and accessible for everyone." The UNESCO-ICANN agreement covers a variety of cooperation areas so that the new development can benefit as many language groups as possible. UNESCO will notably call upon its network of linguistic experts to help in the process; inform Member States about the new IDNs; encourage involvement of other relevant United Nations agencies; and establish working groups to help developing and least-developed countries participate fully. UNESCO is a key contributor to the Internet governance debate. During the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 and 2005, and the following four editions of the Internet Governance Forum, UNESCO promoted the international community's endorsement of four basic principles for the creation of "knowledge societies": freedom of expression; quality education for all; universal access to information and knowledge; and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. [http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/29372/12604541625news_101209_icann_2.jpg/news_101209_icann_2.jpg] Rod Beckstrom and Irina Bokova with representatives of UNESCO and ICANN © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès [http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/29372/12604541627news_101209_icann_3.jpg/news_101209_icann_3.jpg] Rod Beckstrom, President of ICANN, Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, during the signature of the agreement © UNESCO/Patrick Lagès This email was sent to [a.beccalli at unesco.org] Click Here to instantly unsubscribe. Click Here to change your preferences. Communication and Information Sector 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France + 33.1.4568 4243 ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 11 03:29:41 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:29:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: D304C253-F45C-4A09-8D14-EED81BC7503C@datos-personales.org Message-ID: On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of funding open until the end of the year. It seems that funding the IGC would fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could help with if others agree. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 05:33:39 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:33:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70912110233j9411d4euac9ccac92296368a@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I would like to jump into this discussion thread again because I've worked for a non-profit that applied for this fund and from the last news they were successful and before you read ahead, please have a look at this link to clarify what I am saying below: http://www.undemocracyfund.org/perl-bin/undef/proposal.pl This is sort of an expression of interest for being considered and after an organization is short listed, a due diligence process follows for authenticity and then a round of meetings with possible short listed/successful parties takes place before the actual allocation of funds. Before IGC can attempt to apply for such an initiative, it has to have an established non-profit organizational structure in place transformed from its current loosely coupled structure. That is a charter level change to developing an infrastructure somewhere in the world. IGC will have to have a registered/legal non-profit registration and non-taxable status in some country like the ICC (International Chambers of Commerce) of the Private Sector multistakeholder group. Once the project is confirmed, you receive a UN Project Management guide and financial procedures documents basically another project management website that has all this listed in detail. A financial management system, monitoring and reporting system and all related activities also have to be in place. This is a mass charter level change and require approvals with consensus before such attempts are made. I think IGC could receive in-kind support, contributions without financial reporting obligations or assistance for members to participate in IGF process meetings but going for these kinds of work as if there was a democratic change to be brought would be a huge hassle for change in IGF as well as would question IGC's primary role as a Civil Society multistakeholder group? My two cents of observations................my help is available to fill such a proposal.......i've done for some bilateral institutions in the recent past. -- Fouad On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of > funding open until the end of the year.  It seems that funding the IGC would > fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society > empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to > participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and > institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." > > http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf > > I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could help > with if others agree. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 11 05:38:06 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:38:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <808a83f60912110238k38d7b5aare4d107548e9b78e2@mail.gmail.com> Brilliant. I 100% support! Thanks Jeremy for the heads up . I am also willing to help with putting the justification together if the membership agrees. On 12/11/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round > of > funding open until the end of the year. It seems that funding the IGC would > fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society > empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to > participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and > institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." > > http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf > > I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could > help > with if others agree. > > -- > 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 > -- Sent from my mobile device ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 11 05:54:49 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:54:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] UNESCO CI News: "UNESCO and ICANN sign partnership agreement to promote linguistic diversity on Internet" In-Reply-To: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> References: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Message-ID: In message <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660FAFD76 at MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org>, at 18:07:18 on Thu, 10 Dec 2009, "Beccalli, Andrea" quotes a press release: >A significant step was taken on 10 December 2009 towards greater >linguistic diversity on the Internet when UNESCO signed an agreement >with ICANN - the body that assigns online addresses to Internet users While I applaud the IDN movement, most of my "online addresses" have been assigned by a cctld or gtld operator. I live in hope of one day getting one assigned direct by ICANN - the most likely (but not especially likely) being chosen as the operator of a new tld. >Non-Latin script users will eventually have access to internet addresses >completely in their own language. This is perhaps the most important and final step. I wonder if there's a list anywhere of "www." translated into many scripts? And will the rfcs that mention "postmaster@" be updated to allow a foreign script version of the expression? And what would that do for the deliverability of those essential emails to the postmaster? [Apologies if this has all been sorted out, and I hadn't noticed] -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Dec 11 05:58:34 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (ca at cafonso.ca) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:58:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> Hi people, I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be a project or program. This is the way several social movements in Latin America, for example, obtain resources from funding organizations. Funders are accountable for grants as much as grantees. Maybe you have already discussed this here (I am currently unable to follow lists regularly). frt rgds --c.a. Citando Jeremy Malcolm : > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of > funding open until the end of the year. It seems that funding the IGC would > fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society > empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to > participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and > institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." > > http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf > > I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I > could help > with if others agree. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 11 06:18:20 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:18:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70912071550i5fcb3d33h4468be3dccce7ad5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bNuPyO8piILFAgN@perry.co.uk> In message , at 11:16:56 on Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Ian Peter writes >I personally don't have an issue with governmental or private sector >employees being members per se. But it is something that might be worth >clarifying and discussing in the future. People can wear many "hats", depending on the time of day. For example, completely independently of whatever it is I do in the Internet Governance space in my day-job or other professional activity, I am an elected parent representative on the governing board of my local high school. On my desk is a draft "e-safety policy" drawn up by the school management, and while I'm primarily required to look at this through the lens of employer and educator, I also have to take into account the rights and responsibilities of individual students and teachers (especially when using school facilities for private communications) which seems to me to be very much a civil society issue. And my children (to whom this policy will eventually apply), and other children and parents, are civil society. Whether teachers are too, when off duty (as opposed to still being employees), is one of the thorny issues being addressed in the policy. ps. If anyone wants to contact me off-list to discuss the specific issues of Internet access in schools, please feel free. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:11:28 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:41:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4B224500.8070403@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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:38:10 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:08:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election > Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights > Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project > proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. > (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and > associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which > strengthen the voice of civil society. IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. >This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be a > project or program. Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Citando Jeremy Malcolm : > > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round > of > funding open until the end of the year. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 08:39:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:39:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <98031.2421.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I agree.   This is a favorable area of work at the moment and much needed: http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=sa&id=1804   I note at outset the comments already flowing back on applications from previous rounds. Clarity, Innovation, Democracy, value and timetables seem paramount. --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: Re: [governance] IGC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 8:29 AM On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of funding open until the end of the year.  It seems that funding the IGC would fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could help with if others agree. -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Dec 11 08:43:30 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:43:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: D304C253-F45C-4A09-8D14-EED81BC7503C@datos-personales.org Message-ID: <003f01ca7a67$eeba7e20$cc2f7a60$@com> Hi Jeremy Do we have a fiscal organization that can apply for and receive funds? That's one of the organizational problems of the IGC that would prevent accessing grant funding... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 04:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] IGC On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of funding open until the end of the year. It seems that funding the IGC would fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_English.pdf I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could help with if others agree. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 11 08:47:59 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:47:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> For funding purposes, the IGC could get a formal organization to act as a fiscal body for receipt of funds. I have done this for other funded projects. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Hello, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election > Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights > Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project > proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. > (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and > associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which > strengthen the voice of civil society. IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. >This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be a > project or program. Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Citando Jeremy Malcolm : > > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round > of > funding open until the end of the year. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:44:34 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:44:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an > organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is > to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be > by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or > a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? > My sense is no. What are the projects that we would accomplish with funding? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From andersj at elon.edu Fri Dec 11 08:46:28 2009 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:46:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <003f01ca7a67$eeba7e20$cc2f7a60$@com> Message-ID: Isn't the IGC part of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility? That's how I first found the IGC and joined it. http://cpsr.org/issues/ig/ Would that organization be way to leverage this? On 12/11/09 8:43 AM, "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote: > Hi Jeremy > Do we have a fiscal organization that can apply for and receive funds? That's > one of the organizational problems of the IGC that would prevent accessing > grant funding... > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 04:30 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] IGC > > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round of > funding open until the end of the year. It seems that funding the IGC would > fit well within the funding criteria, including that of "Civil society > empowerment ... activities that strengthen civil society capacities to > participate in democratic processes, including umbrella organizations and > institutional interfaces between civil society and the State." > > http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/4thRound_ProjectProposalGuidelines_Englis > h.pdf > > I would suggest the IGC consider putting in an application, which I could help > with if others agree. -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:50:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:20:56 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B224E40.3070008@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:52:25 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:22:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70912071550i5fcb3d33h4468be3dccce7ad5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ian, On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Fouad, > > That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our > membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you raise > in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and has > happened in the past. If the Caucus does not discriminate between individuals as members, how would NomCom discriminate between candidates as candidates from a business background / government background etc? If there is no discrimination on the membership level, there can't be any discrimination at any level. > > I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue with > governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is > something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future. If my understanding is right, the IGC is a 'Civil Society' Caucus, and it has remain as a Civil Society body where members from other sectors are admitted as exceptions but not indiscriminately. Keeping membership wide open for Government and Business might make the IGC a multi-stakeholder body, but that would imply that the IGC is no longer a 'Civil Society' Caucus. Equal status to Government and Business might in future get distorted as proportionately larger status and larger influence to Government and Business. That is to say that the seats within IGC may be largely occupied by Business and Government interests. So what do we want the IGC to be? A civil Society body or a multi-stakeholder body? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Ian > > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa >> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members >> >> Dear all, >> >> I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding >> membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the >> world around including any meeting regional or international that I >> attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation >> network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or >> academia. >> >> However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil >> Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government >> representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal >> capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the >> IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as >> participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take >> their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their >> governments and companies? >> >> I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank >> you in advance for your comments! >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 08:51:33 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:51:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Long view cross roads Message-ID: <62360.56537.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Since I spend quite a bit of time hiking active and dormant Volcanoes and out of Billion year old canyons, I have developed a kind of long view on crisis and matters of climate.   But as a student of history I like to look for significant moments where good men & women did not act. The easy are things like when a huge Dam was built, Holocausts, Genocides, famines and plagues. Wars generally are the result of a citizenry that lets their government get out of control -- but usually that is gradual.   I am prognosticating now that we are just about at a crossroads with the Internet.  Either the citizenry wake up and do something or the governments (in this case largely corporate conglomerates) will be unfettered.  ICANN is unchecked now, Intellectual Property interests are reducing our rights, and privacy violations are more oft sanctioned than not. Each progression toward these dilatory factors remains quiet and unopposed.   Either we quickly provide some structure for individual checks and balances on the elite or we are headed very soon into a situation of might is right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 08:54:16 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:54:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> Message-ID: <62089.95700.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Quite a good point to raise early and cap.  We have all seen administrative costs that were a majority of the budget.  Bringing disrespect and waste to an otherwise good cause.   I assume here the offer was meant pro bono. --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: From: Jacqueline A. Morris Subject: RE: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Cc: ca at cafonso.ca, "'Jeremy Malcolm'" , "'Fouad Bajwa'" Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:47 PM For funding purposes, the IGC could get a formal organization to act as a fiscal body for receipt of funds. I have done this for other funded projects. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Hello, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election > Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights > Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project > proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. > (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and > associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which > strengthen the voice of civil society. IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. >This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be a > project or program. Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Citando Jeremy Malcolm : > > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round > of > funding open until the end of the year. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 08:56:02 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:26:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> Message-ID: Hello Jacqueline, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > For funding purposes, the IGC could get a formal organization to act as a > fiscal body for receipt of funds. Would it suffice if IGC engages a Law firm or a firm of Chartered Accountants to act on its behalf and receive funds? I have done this for other funded > projects. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:38 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important > > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election >> Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights >> Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project >> proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. >> (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and >> associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which >> strengthen the voice of civil society. > > IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough > > ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > >> I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. > > Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations > some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal > level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an > organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. > >>This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be > a >> project or program. > > Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an > organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is > to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be > by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or > a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> Citando Jeremy Malcolm : >> >> On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round >> of >> funding open until the end of the year. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 09:06:10 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:06:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Long view cross roads In-Reply-To: <62360.56537.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <62360.56537.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050912110606k1810f2f2s8836199acdc519f1@mail.gmail.com> Dear Eric et al: Interesting as always. Also underfoot: forming a fundable (read more viable) organization. Perhaps one thinks & soothes self too often that Might doesn't make Right - but most discussions of Rights (even or especially claims of suggested-to-be core "human" rights) do acknowledge the need for Development as underpinnings. "Might" in terms of organization to promote "Voice & Vote", that is, may make Right *possible*. It seems the sense of this gathering that with the Internet as elsewhere this *possibility* is not only attractive but very much needed. Best wishes and reading on, Linda M F. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Since I spend quite a bit of time hiking active and dormant Volcanoes and > out of Billion year old canyons, I have developed a kind of long view on > crisis and matters of climate. > > But as a student of history I like to look for significant moments where > good men & women did not act. The easy are things like when a huge Dam was > built, Holocausts, Genocides, famines and plagues. Wars generally are the > result of a citizenry that lets their government get out of control -- but > usually that is gradual. > > I am prognosticating now that we are just about at a crossroads with the > Internet. Either the citizenry wake up and do something or the governments > (in this case largely corporate conglomerates) will be unfettered. ICANN is > unchecked now, Intellectual Property interests are reducing our rights, and > privacy violations are more oft sanctioned than not. Each progression toward > these dilatory factors remains quiet and unopposed. > > Either we quickly provide some structure for individual checks and balances > on the elite or we are headed very soon into a situation of might is > right.____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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. > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl.; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 09:12:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:12:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <68757.26662.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please clarify.  An individual that makes a living in the business community, should be no different than an individual that makes a living in the clergy. I do not believe that when Einstein took a seat as a member of a corporate board he lost intelligence.  I do not feel less commited to God when I write a policy for a multinational corporation.   But I agree with anti-capture measures.  ICANN really has a good model in the opposite.  Corporations get all the power but individuals and civil society types get a liason.  It looks good and politically correct but -- let us call a spade a spade and not a pitchfork. --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" Cc: "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:52 PM Hello Ian, On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Fouad, > > That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our > membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you raise > in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and has > happened in the past. If the Caucus does not discriminate between individuals as members, how would NomCom discriminate between candidates as candidates from a business background / government background etc?  If there is no discrimination on the membership level, there can't be any discrimination at any level. > > I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue with > governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is > something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future. If my understanding is right, the IGC is a 'Civil Society' Caucus, and it has remain as a Civil Society body where members from other sectors are admitted as exceptions but not indiscriminately. Keeping membership wide open for Government and Business might make the IGC a multi-stakeholder body, but that would imply that the IGC is no longer a 'Civil Society' Caucus. Equal status to Government and Business might in future get distorted as proportionately larger status and larger influence to Government and Business. That is to say that the seats within IGC may be largely occupied by Business and Government interests.  So what do we want the IGC to be?  A civil Society body or a multi-stakeholder body? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Ian > > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa >> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members >> >> Dear all, >> >> I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding >> membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the >> world around including any meeting regional or international that I >> attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation >> network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or >> academia. >> >> However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil >> Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government >> representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal >> capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the >> IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as >> participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take >> their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their >> governments and companies? >> >> I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank >> you in advance for your comments! >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 11 09:19:28 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:19:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Long view cross roads In-Reply-To: <45ed74050912110606k1810f2f2s8836199acdc519f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <78565.56636.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Fear not fine maiden,  there are those of us that are mighty devious.  The trick more often than not -- does not lie in wielding the might but in manipulating it.  There is no wonder why the ancients and old testament directors used the concept of an all powerful and mighty.  I prefer to take a more inverse rain approach. The mighty cloud is formed by all the tiny raindrops. --- On Fri, 12/11/09, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: Re: [governance] Long view cross roads To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: respectful.interfaces at gmail.com, "l.d. misek-falkoff" Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 2:06 PM Dear Eric et al:   Interesting as always.  Also underfoot: forming a fundable (read more viable) organization.   Perhaps one thinks & soothes self too often that Might doesn't make Right - but most discussions of Rights (even or especially claims of suggested-to-be core "human" rights)  do acknowledge the need for Development as underpinnings.    "Might" in terms of organization to promote "Voice & Vote", that is, may make Right possible.  It seems the sense of this gathering that with the Internet as elsewhere this possibility is not only attractive but very much needed.   Best wishes and reading on,  Linda M F. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Since I spend quite a bit of time hiking active and dormant Volcanoes and out of Billion year old canyons, I have developed a kind of long view on crisis and matters of climate.   But as a student of history I like to look for significant moments where good men & women did not act. The easy are things like when a huge Dam was built, Holocausts, Genocides, famines and plagues. Wars generally are the result of a citizenry that lets their government get out of control -- but usually that is gradual.   I am prognosticating now that we are just about at a crossroads with the Internet.  Either the citizenry wake up and do something or the governments (in this case largely corporate conglomerates) will be unfettered.  ICANN is unchecked now, Intellectual Property interests are reducing our rights, and privacy violations are more oft sanctioned than not. Each progression toward these dilatory factors remains quiet and unopposed.   Either we quickly provide some structure for individual checks and balances on the elite or we are headed very soon into a situation of might is right.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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. > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law /  computing / humanities: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl.; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > -  You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. -----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 garth.graham at telus.net Fri Dec 11 09:33:44 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:33:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912110233j9411d4euac9ccac92296368a@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70912110233j9411d4euac9ccac92296368a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5DCF41E5-C4D5-4704-8453-969F0946CC59@telus.net> Wow, a fully functional bureaucracy! Once again business and government makes over "civil society" in it's own image, so that they can off load the things they don't want to do themselves. GG On 2009-12-11, at 2:33 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > A financial management system, monitoring and reporting system and all > related activities also have to be in place. This is a mass charter > level change and require approvals with consensus before such attempts ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 09:36:24 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:36:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Long view cross roads In-Reply-To: <78565.56636.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <45ed74050912110606k1810f2f2s8836199acdc519f1@mail.gmail.com> <78565.56636.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050912110636q53a32bf8u774e153aea94fda6@mail.gmail.com> Briefly, lest posting to entire list not seem decorous - or too "soft": Yes of course Eric. May one modestly propose a 'friendly amendment': when the tiny raindrops fall on the same "place" at "the same time." (No doubt you've seen the bottom up is top down cartoons). Appreciating the portraiture, flattery works overtime, Linda. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Fear not fine maiden, there are those of us that are *might*y devious. > The trick more often than not -- does not lie in wielding the might but in > manipulating it. There is no wonder why the ancients and old testament > directors used the concept of an all powerful and mighty. I prefer to take > a more inverse rain approach. The mighty cloud is formed by all the tiny > raindrops. > > --- On *Fri, 12/11/09, linda misek-falkoff *wrote: > > > From: linda misek-falkoff > Subject: Re: [governance] Long view cross roads > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > Cc: respectful.interfaces at gmail.com, "l.d. misek-falkoff" < > ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 2:06 PM > > > Dear Eric et al: > > Interesting as always. Also underfoot: forming a fundable (read more > viable) organization. > > Perhaps one thinks & soothes self too often that Might doesn't make Right - > but most discussions of Rights (even or especially claims of suggested-to-be > core "human" rights) do acknowledge the need for Development as > underpinnings. > > "Might" in terms of organization to promote "Voice & Vote", that is, may > make Right *possible*. It seems the sense of this gathering that with the > Internet as elsewhere this *possibility* is not only attractive but very > much needed. > > Best wishes and reading on, Linda M F. > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Eric Dierker > > wrote: > >> Since I spend quite a bit of time hiking active and dormant Volcanoes and >> out of Billion year old canyons, I have developed a kind of long view on >> crisis and matters of climate. >> >> But as a student of history I like to look for significant moments where >> good men & women did not act. The easy are things like when a huge Dam was >> built, Holocausts, Genocides, famines and plagues. Wars generally are the >> result of a citizenry that lets their government get out of control -- but >> usually that is gradual. >> >> I am prognosticating now that we are just about at a crossroads with the >> Internet. Either the citizenry wake up and do something or the governments >> (in this case largely corporate conglomerates) will be unfettered. ICANN is >> unchecked now, Intellectual Property interests are reducing our rights, and >> privacy violations are more oft sanctioned than not. Each progression toward >> these dilatory factors remains quiet and unopposed. >> >> Either we quickly provide some structure for individual checks and >> balances on the elite or we are headed very soon into a situation of might >> is right.____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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. > > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > > 914 769 3652 > > law / computing / humanities: > > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > > Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the > > U.N.; > > World Education Fellowship; > > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > > National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus; > > Persons with Pain Intl.; > > ICT multiple decades; > > Other affiliations on Request. > > > > n.b.: > > > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > > about leadership interning). > > > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the > CCC/UN. > > -----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 > > -- LDMF. > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Officer - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > National Disability Party (NDP); International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl.; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cafonso.ca Fri Dec 11 09:45:22 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:45:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: <5DCF41E5-C4D5-4704-8453-969F0946CC59@telus.net> References: <701af9f70912110233j9411d4euac9ccac92296368a@mail.gmail.com> <5DCF41E5-C4D5-4704-8453-969F0946CC59@telus.net> Message-ID: <4B225B02.1020006@cafonso.ca> Yes, it is the trade-off if we want to get legitimate grants... But we do not need to do it ourselves, if we manage to carry it out through an established organization (someone mentioned CPSR?). frt rgds --c.a. Garth Graham wrote: > Wow, a fully functional bureaucracy! Once again business and government > makes over "civil society" in it's own image, so that they can off load > the things they don't want to do themselves. > > GG > > On 2009-12-11, at 2:33 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> A financial management system, monitoring and reporting system and all >> related activities also have to be in place. This is a mass charter >> level change and require approvals with consensus before such attempts > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 11 09:58:08 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <62089.95700.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> <62089.95700.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006c01ca7a72$5f1a4ce0$1d4ee6a0$@com> I meant that I have FOUND groups to act as fiscal agencies for projects I have worked on - sorry - not that I was offering to do that. Jacqueline From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:54 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; 'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'; 'Ginger Paque' Cc: ca at cafonso.ca; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Fouad Bajwa' Subject: RE: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Quite a good point to raise early and cap. We have all seen administrative costs that were a majority of the budget. Bringing disrespect and waste to an otherwise good cause. I assume here the offer was meant pro bono. --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: From: Jacqueline A. Morris Subject: RE: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Cc: ca at cafonso.ca, "'Jeremy Malcolm'" , "'Fouad Bajwa'" Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:47 PM For funding purposes, the IGC could get a formal organization to act as a fiscal body for receipt of funds. I have done this for other funded projects. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com ] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque Cc: ca at cafonso.ca ; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Hello, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election > Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights > Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project > proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. > (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and > associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which > strengthen the voice of civil society. IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. >This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be a > project or program. Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Citando Jeremy Malcolm >: > > On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round > of > funding open until the end of the year. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Dec 11 10:00:06 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:00:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> <004b01ca7a68$930842a0$b918c7e0$@com> Message-ID: <007d01ca7a72$a8505da0$f8f118e0$@com> It depends on the terms of the grant/funding - some require that the recipient of the funds (fiscal agent) be a non profit, some don't. Some have a LOT of requirements for the organization that officially receives the funds, some don't. -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:56 AM To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Hello Jacqueline, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > For funding purposes, the IGC could get a formal organization to act as a > fiscal body for receipt of funds. Would it suffice if IGC engages a Law firm or a firm of Chartered Accountants to act on its behalf and receive funds? I have done this for other funded > projects. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:38 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important > > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> (2) Independent and Constitutional Bodies, including Election >> Commissions, Ombudsman Institutions, National Human Rights >> Institutions and other independent governance bodies, for project >> proposals facilitating the inclusion of the voice of civil society. >> (3) Global and Regional inter-government bodies, organizations and >> associations other than the United Nations, for project proposals which >> strengthen the voice of civil society. > > IGC would fit into this categories if the cover letter is descriptive enough > > ca at cafonso.ca wrote: > >> I do not think we can get funding unless we have an institutional base. > > Largely true. But we still can get funding from business corporations > some of us are connected to. We may have to reach out on a personal > level to make the Donor company understand that the IGC is an > organization though not incorporated as a non-profit body. > >>This could be an umbrella organization, of which formally the IGC would be > a >> project or program. > > Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an > organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is > to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be > by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or > a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> Citando Jeremy Malcolm : >> >> On funding sources for the IGC, the UN Democracy Fund has its fourth round >> of >> funding open until the end of the year. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 11 10:06:13 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008c01ca7a73$7dcf8460$796e8d20$@com> That is definitely a most important point. The way I think funding works best is to have a project that is important to us, and then find a funding source to support it, rather than find a funding opportunity and then create a project to access the funds. Do we have such a project that could benefit from funding? I have missed out on quite a few emails owing to work pressures (end of semester projects and exams) , and I know that some ideas were tossed around before and during IGF Sharm. Jacqueline From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 09:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: Ginger Paque; ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? My sense is no. What are the projects that we would accomplish with funding? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 10:08:02 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:38:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello McTim, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:14 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: >> >> >> >> Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an >> organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is >> to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be >> by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or >> a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? > > > My sense is no. > > What are the projects that we would accomplish with funding? Yes, there are NO 'projects' for which IGC requires funds. The Caucus requires funds to fund co-ordinators to attend prelimiary meetings and funds to support its nominees to attend MAG meetings. A little bit of money to manage its website. I recollect that there was a proposal the year before last year to raise among its members about $30 - 50,000 to fund some basic requirements. If the Caucus manages to raise as much from one or two organizations and some of its members, it should be sufficient. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > -- > 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 10:23:11 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:53:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members In-Reply-To: <68757.26662.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <68757.26662.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Eric Dierker, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Please clarify. An individual that makes a living in the business > community, should be no different than an individual that makes a living in > the clergy. > As long as the individuality is maintained, it doesn't really matter if the individual makes his living from business or government. Individuals who are employed in a business corporation or Government, as long as they become part of IGC as individuals, in their individual capacity, are not to be considered as 'representatives' or 'nominees' from business or government. It becomes a problem when business establishments start nominating their Lawyers or Employees to represent their business / government in the forum.In that case they would classify as members from the business or government stakeholder group. > I do not believe that when Einstein took a seat as a member of a corporate > board he lost intelligence. I do not feel less commited to God when I write > a policy for a multinational corporation. > > But I agree with anti-capture measures. > 'Capture' was the underlying concern expressed in my message. The idea is to be cautious of such possibilities of a full or partial capture. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > --- On *Fri, 12/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" > Cc: "Fouad Bajwa" > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:52 PM > > > Hello Ian, > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: > > Hi Fouad, > > > > That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our > > membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you > raise > > in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and > has > > happened in the past. > > If the Caucus does not discriminate between individuals as members, > how would NomCom discriminate between candidates as candidates from a > business background / government background etc? If there is no > discrimination on the membership level, there can't be any > discrimination at any level. > > > > > I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue > with > > governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is > > something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future. > > If my understanding is right, the IGC is a 'Civil Society' Caucus, and > it has remain as a Civil > Society body where members from other sectors are admitted as > exceptions but not indiscriminately. Keeping membership wide open for > Government and Business might make the IGC a multi-stakeholder body, > but that would imply that the IGC is no longer a 'Civil Society' > Caucus. Equal status to Government and Business might in future get > distorted as proportionately larger status and larger influence to > Government and Business. That is to say that the seats within IGC may > be largely occupied by Business and Government interests. So what do > we want the IGC to be? A civil Society body or a multi-stakeholder > body? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa > > > >> Reply-To: >, > Fouad Bajwa > > > >> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500 > >> To: > > > >> Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding > >> membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the > >> world around including any meeting regional or international that I > >> attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation > >> network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or > >> academia. > >> > >> However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil > >> Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government > >> representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal > >> capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the > >> IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as > >> participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take > >> their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their > >> governments and companies? > >> > >> I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank > >> you in advance for your comments! > >> > >> -- > >> Regards. > >> -------------------------- > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 10:25:00 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:25:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC In-Reply-To: References: <003f01ca7a67$eeba7e20$cc2f7a60$@com> Message-ID: Hello Janna, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > Isn't the IGC part of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility? > That's how I first found the IGC and joined it. http://cpsr.org/issues/ig/ > > no, CPSR has been kind enough to host our list, but that is the only connection AFAIK. Others have also been confused about his in the past. > Would that organization be way to leverage this? > > It can't hurt to ask, if that is what we want. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 10:26:33 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:26:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a happy end of the year and a prosperous 2010/ Votos de um feliz fim do ano e prospero 2010 Message-ID: Dear Friends and Colleagues Another year is close to its end. It is thus that time of the year to sit back and reflect on all that the year brought. With all the ups and downs into the mix, 2009 was overall a great one. I trust that for you it was equally rewarding and full of excitement. I would like to thank those with whom I worked– and continue to work - for the honour of being part of your projects. I look forward to once again be of service in the New Year. To you all, I solemnly wish a peaceful and restful time, with lots of joy and happiness surrounded by family and friends. For 2010, I wish you all the best and lots of success with your new projects. Let it also be a year replete with personal happiness and prosperity, and, above all, good health for you and those dear to you. A heart-felt abraço and God bless you all. Rui Caro/as Amigo/as e Colegas Mais um ano está prestes a acabar. Aproxima-se então aquela altura do ano para relaxar e ponderar sobre o que o ano nos trouxe. Com todos os altos e baixos na mistura, 2009 foi em geral um óptimo ano. Espero que para si tenha também sido gratificante e cheio de aventura. Gostaria de agradecer a todos com quem trabalhei – e continuo a trabalhar – pela honra de ser parte dos vossos projectos. Aguardo com ansiedade mais uma vez ser-lhes útil no novo ano. A todos, desejo-vos solenemente um período de paz e descanso, com muita alegria e felicidade, rodeado/a por família e amigos. Para 2010, desejo-vos tudo do melhor e muito sucesso com os vossos novos projectos. Que seja também um ano repleto de alegria e prosperidade pessoais e acima de tudo, muita saúde, para si e para os seus entes queridos. Um forte abraço e que Deus vos abençoe a todos. Rui -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 10:36:10 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:36:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a happy end of the year and a prosperous 2010/ Votos de um feliz fim do ano e prospero 2010 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends and Colleagues Another year is close to its end. It is thus that time of the year to sit back and reflect on all that the year brought. With all the ups and downs into the mix, 2009 was overall a great one. I trust that for you it was equally rewarding and full of excitement. I would like to thank those with whom I worked– and continue to work - for the honour of being part of your projects. I look forward to once again be of service in the New Year. To you all, I solemnly wish a peaceful and restful time, with lots of joy and happiness surrounded by family and friends. For 2010, I wish you all the best and lots of success with your new projects. Let it also be a year replete with personal happiness and prosperity, and, above all, good health for you and those dear to you. A heart-felt abraço and God bless you all. Rui Caro/as Amigo/as e Colegas Mais um ano está prestes a acabar. Aproxima-se então aquela altura do ano para relaxar e ponderar sobre o que o ano nos trouxe. Com todos os altos e baixos na mistura, 2009 foi em geral um óptimo ano. Espero que para si tenha também sido gratificante e cheio de aventura. Gostaria de agradecer a todos com quem trabalhei – e continuo a trabalhar – pela honra de ser parte dos vossos projectos. Aguardo com ansiedade mais uma vez ser-lhes útil no novo ano. A todos, desejo-vos solenemente um período de paz e descanso, com muita alegria e felicidade, rodeado/a por família e amigos. Para 2010, desejo-vos tudo do melhor e muito sucesso com os vossos novos projectos. Que seja também um ano repleto de alegria e prosperidade pessoais e acima de tudo, muita saúde, para si e para os seus entes queridos. Um forte abraço e que Deus vos abençoe a todos. Rui -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Dec 11 11:46:25 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:46:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC IGP IGF [FUNDS] In-Reply-To: 4B225B02.1020006@cafonso.ca Message-ID: I belive the IGP (Milton / Syracuse Univ et. al. ) had recived money from the Ford Foundation, Should be quite a bit left. Ford Foundation: www.fordfound.org Internet Grants (All): Search http://www.fordfound.org/grants/database/searchresults?keywords=Internet&phraseType=all&searchIn=all&resultsPerPage=10&yearFrom=all&yearTo=all&amountFrom=ANY&amountTo=ANY&fields=all®ions=all&programs=all --- FUNDING Refs. http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-07/msg00109.html - http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00251.html 2006-2007 = 175,000 USD > http://www.fordfound.org/grants/database/detail?21962 For the School of Information Studies' Internet Governance Project, an academic consortium for research and policy analysis on transnational citizen-inspired change in Internet information policy - 2008-2010 = 200,000 USD http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00246.html For the Internet Governance Project to inform and shape Internet public policy through independent analysis guided by the values of democratic governance and individual rights -- $175,000 200,000 ________ $375,000 USD To Date --- Here We are again Carlos: Where has the Money gone ??? [e.g.: Detailed Expense Report Please] If you can't pull the info, I can(.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 12:00:52 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:00:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC/IGP/IGF [FUNDS] Message-ID: I belive the IGP (Milton / Syracuse Univ et. al. ) had recived money from the Ford Foundation, Should be quite a bit left. Ford Foundation: www.fordfound.org Internet Grants (All): Search http://www.fordfound.org/grants/database/searchresults?keywords=Internet&phraseType=all&searchIn=all&resultsPerPage=10&yearFrom=all&yearTo=all&amountFrom=ANY&amountTo=ANY&fields=all®ions=all&programs=all --- FUNDING Refs. http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-07/msg00109.html - http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00251.html http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00246.html 2006-2007 = 175,000 USD http://www.fordfound.org/grants/database/detail?21962 For the School of Information Studies' Internet Governance Project, an academic consortium for research and policy analysis on transnational citizen-inspired change in Internet information policy --- 2008-2010 = 200,000 USD http://www.fordfound.org/grants/database/detail?107488 For the Internet Governance Project to inform and shape Internet public policy through independent analysis guided by the values of democratic governance and individual rights --- $175,000 200,000 ________ $375,000 USD To Date --- Here We are again Carlos: Where has the Money gone ??? [e.g.: Detailed Expense Report Please] If you can't pull the info, I will(.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 23:46:52 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:46:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: References: <20091211085834.sdt1p6zngg88gkwg@email.rits.org.br> <4B224500.8070403@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF35B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My opinion & recollection: This is deja vu all over again. We went through a lot of discussion on this list on the issue of incorporating a couple years ago with the bottom line conclusion being that the cost of incorporating IGC and getting on the fund-raising treadmill outweighed benefits. It's reasonable to ask the question again, but at moment I don't see answer being different. Since with $ come competition for $ (or Euros or yuan, whatever). Which in an all-volunteer org - including also many other civil society orgs with their own fund-raising needs - could be quite the distraction. But I could change my mind if I heard a convincing case on what benefits would be. ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: Ginger Paque; ca at cafonso.ca; Jeremy Malcolm; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: Not necessarily. The Internet Governance Caucus is already an organization by itself. What needs to be done, if it suits the IGC, is to formalize the Caucus as a Civil Society Organization which may be by registering the IGC as an International non-profit organization or a Society. But does it suit the IGC to go through these steps? My sense is no. What are the projects that we would accomplish with funding? -- 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Dec 12 05:28:20 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:28:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Message-ID: <749970C4-3CA2-4AD3-8FF4-692A6E875CE1@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Dec 12, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > My opinion & recollection: > > This is deja vu all over again. > > We went through a lot of discussion on this list on the issue of incorporating a couple years ago with the bottom line conclusion being that the cost of incorporating IGC and getting on the fund-raising treadmill outweighed benefits. Yes, we've established a tradition of redoing previous debates without drawing on the prior iterations and points of consensus. Maybe this is inevitable given almost seven years of existence, changing casts of characters, changing external conditions, the lack of organized institutional memory (expecting people to go dig through list archives being unreasonable), etc. > > It's reasonable to ask the question again, but at moment I don't see answer being different. On the one hand, there's always the risk that the pursuit of funding, and all the institutional machinations this could imply, would take over the process and preclude or at least squeeze attention to developing substantive policy positions etc. Could also make the handling/distribution of any funds received a point of contention. We've probably all seen these sorts of thing happen before in other CS coalitions. On the other hand, if a subgroup of folks wants to go off and try to iron out a focused proposal for consideration, maybe the process could be managed in a way that's not overly disruptive to the main objectives. As Siva notes, there are no 'projects' requiring funding. But funds might be well spent on some foundational mechanics, e.g. things we've talked about in years past like pulling together all the caucus statements and other documents (both those now at www.net-gov.org and www.igcaucus.org and those nobody ever got around to posting); building a site with collaborative tools, e.g. social networking and wiki; disseminating outputs more widely; and so on. Of course these things could be done on a volunteer basis too, but since nobody's ever shown an inclination paying, someone a little could be sensible. As Carlos notes, there'd have to be an institutional base; incorporating IGC would be hard since it's a distributed network rather than an organization, but supporting IGC could be legally a project of some serious existing entity that enjoys credibility and trust in this space (one comes to mind, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot...). On the latter, Carlos and Janna asked about Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Having served as its president for a few years during WSIS, I wish I could recommend CPSR as a project home, but I don't think it's sensible. As far as I can tell the organization has gone pretty moribund in the past few years, which is a pity given that it was a reasonably prominent part of the US public interest ICT policy landscape for about 25 years, has multi-issue scope, and is something individuals can actually join (in contrast to staff-based NGOs etc). Moreover, despite having paid members in like 25 countries and been active in WSIS, most of the membership was and probably still is more concerned with the US domestic scene than international institutions and issues. That said, the IGC list was established by CPSR, and that's why still we're on NPO Groups. Were the caucus to reorganize and consolidate its electronic resources, it could make sense to move the list and archive accordingly. Not pressing, but might make sense in the context of a larger regrouping. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 07:41:31 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:41:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: <749970C4-3CA2-4AD3-8FF4-692A6E875CE1@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <749970C4-3CA2-4AD3-8FF4-692A6E875CE1@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70912120441l2f337307u6ca42598f5f91719@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, What Bill shares strikes a very good set of points that also tend to answer Siva's question and many of the questions that are popping up including where is the project but the point I've been trying to emphasize on is where is the consensus and the consensus has to be managed the same way we build consensus for all our initiatives: IGC at the moment has 6 critical projects either in adoption or application: 1. IGC on Internet Rights 2. IGC on Development Agenda for Internet Governance or simply IG4D and the Political Economy of IG 3. IG Capacity Building 4. Developing Country Participation 5. CS Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Impact Assessment of the IGF . 6. IGC Infrastructure both brick and mortar as well as the Cloud I recollect and suggest the following few things: 1. We could reformulate and reorganize or simply said, institutionalize (both legally and infrastructure) in Geneva as IGC an international CS organization with a permanent address and location in Geneva giving us a brick and mortar identity and a recognition that we do exist as an off-line office-d Civil Society Organization that organizes itself, its mission, its objectives, its members virtually and monitors the IGF and works closely with the IGF Secretariat to achieve maximum Civil Society stakeholder engagement in the IGF. 2. All CS members of IGC from their various countries host the liaison or country offices or country group spaces of IGC meaning, IGC Brazi, IGC India, IGC (country) and connect with the Umbrella IGC in Geneva. Board selections and officers will be on a one year rotation enabling everyone to participate in its official role and its management. Seats will be equally allocated between developing/developed world CS Individuals, Groups, Communities, Associations, Academia and Research so that a balance is maintained for self-organization. The structure can be full voluntary with paid staff if the funds available. The role is facilitation of CS in the IGF process in accordance with the IGC Charter that already exists. We need to plan and organize our strategy. Bill is based in Geneva and so are some of our IGC members that can play this important first step to organizing the on ground presence of IGC in Geneva. The IGC Co-ordinator can be suggested to be IGC's first step into managing the Geneva office with the officers helping found it. The IGC Co-ordinator with the Co-Coordinator can lead this with the board. 3. There are lot of project directions including our combined IGC stances on Internet Rights, Development Agenda, Capacity Building and Developing Country Participation and finally the CS Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Impact Assessment of the IGF . These are five critical areas to take forward plus six the infrastructure. The IGC Headquarters in Geneva can act as a facility that could help in assisting participating CS members in Geneva providing a space for meets, helping out in campaigning, training, educating, facilitation preparations for open consultations and MAG meetings. I see a large number of engagement points for the IGC in Geneva. Its collaboration with Diplo Foundation, the EURODIG, the South IG Summer School capacity building initiatives, Research and Developments based on Kati's idea, advocacy based on Jeremy's ideas, having a strong centre on the ground in Genvea gives the strong structure that Civil Society is evolving 4. We need our own IGC Cloud/Server environment (could be a cloud service or hosted at a partner university). We need a single domain infrastructure to host a multitasking activity environment including our website, our mailing list, our social network and our action oriented action environment. Basically our communication plan and infrastructure. Let me come back to you with more clear ideas, suggestions on this. On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > On Dec 12, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > My opinion & recollection: > > This is deja vu all over again. > > We went through a lot of discussion on this list on the issue of > incorporating a couple years ago with the bottom line conclusion being that > the cost of incorporating IGC and getting on the fund-raising treadmill > outweighed benefits. > > Yes, we've established a tradition of redoing previous debates without > drawing on the prior iterations and points of consensus.  Maybe this is > inevitable given almost seven years of existence, changing casts of > characters, changing external conditions, the lack of organized > institutional memory (expecting people to go dig through list archives being > unreasonable), etc. > > It's reasonable to ask the question again, but at moment I don't see answer > being different. > > On the one hand, there's always the risk that the pursuit of funding, and > all the institutional machinations this could imply, would take over the > process and preclude or at least squeeze attention to developing substantive > policy positions etc. Could also make the handling/distribution of any funds > received a point of contention. We've probably all seen these sorts of thing > happen before in other CS coalitions. > On the other hand, if a subgroup of folks wants to go off and try to iron > out a focused proposal for consideration, maybe the process could be managed > in a way that's not overly disruptive to the main objectives.  As Siva > notes, there are no 'projects' requiring funding.  But funds might be well > spent on some foundational mechanics, e.g. things we've talked about in > years past like pulling together all the caucus statements and other > documents (both those now at www.net-gov.org and www.igcaucus.org and those > nobody ever got around to posting); building a site with collaborative > tools, e.g. social networking and wiki; disseminating outputs more widely; > and so on.  Of course these things could be done on a volunteer basis too, > but since nobody's ever shown an inclination paying, someone a little could > be sensible.  As Carlos notes, there'd have to be an institutional base; > incorporating IGC would be hard since it's a distributed network rather than > an organization, but supporting IGC could be legally a project of some > serious existing entity that enjoys credibility and trust in this space (one > comes to mind, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot...). > On the latter, Carlos and Janna asked about Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility.  Having served as its president for a few years > during WSIS, I wish I could recommend CPSR as a project home, but I don't > think it's sensible.  As far as I can tell the organization has gone pretty > moribund in the past few years, which is a pity given that it was a > reasonably prominent part of the US public interest ICT policy landscape for > about 25 years, has multi-issue scope, and is something individuals can > actually join (in contrast to staff-based NGOs etc).  Moreover, despite > having paid members in like 25 countries and been active in WSIS, most of > the membership was and probably still is more concerned with the US domestic > scene than international institutions and issues.  That said, the IGC list > was established by CPSR, and that's why still we're on NPO Groups.  Were the > caucus to reorganize and consolidate its electronic resources, it could make > sense to move the list and archive accordingly.  Not pressing, but might > make sense in the context of a larger regrouping. > Best, > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and >  Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 Sat Dec 12 11:30:15 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:30:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important In-Reply-To: 701af9f70912120441l2f337307u6ca42598f5f91719@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Candidate Bajwa; >... I've been trying to >emphasize on is where is the consensus and the consensus has to be >managed the same way we build consensus for all our initiatives: > >IGC at the moment has 6 critical projects either in adoption or application: > >1. IGC on Internet Rights >2. IGC on Development Agenda for Internet Governance or simply IG4D >and the Political Economy of IG >3. IG Capacity Building >4. Developing Country Participation >5. CS Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Impact Assessment of the IGF . >6. IGC Infrastructure both brick and mortar as well as the Cloud > >I recollect and suggest the following few things: > >1. We could reformulate and reorganize or simply said, ... Ok: How would you Design your website interface (the: Portal Structure, CMS, etc...), in order to reach the World, and by its Design "Manage the way we build consensus for all our initiatives." Take me through it, please. (Verbally) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 13 08:51:08 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:21:08 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator election in progress! have you voted yet? Message-ID: <4B24F14C.7070900@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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sun Dec 13 09:26:14 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:26:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation Message-ID: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. *1) on funding * Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether it is called a "project" or not) : *facilitating the participation of civil society actors from developing countries in Internet Governance Processes*. It can take the form of supporting/organizing remote hubs and participatory tools, supporting the emergence of local (national and regional) IGFs, or even selecting and funding the physical participation of individuals in the global IGF. All this is already done to a certain level. Soliciting funding from Foundations to develop such activities (provided there is clear procedures, transparency, etc...) would be very valuable. In addition, this would require defining selection criteria and procedures that would be fair, transparent, as well as geographically and gender balanced, which is not an easy task. But any solution that the IGC would come up with could be an important contribution. Everybody is trying to find a proper answer to this question, including well intentioned governments : apart from elections and NomComs, what are the possible modalities to form multi-stakeholder groups (like the MAG or any thematic working group) ? The IGC has been instrumental in dreaming the Forum; can it now contribute to developing some of its working methods ? *2) On incorporation* As I think I have mentioned a few years ago on this list when the same discussion had emerged, the challenge is : what are the possibilities to create a structure directly at the international level ? Today, any association must be based in one country and then develop its activities in other countries by setting up subsidiaries, etc... *Could there be a way to establish something directly at the global level ?* We have heard that Switzerland has created a new status for international non-for profit organizations that would do just that, ie : allowing the creation of an international organization that is not inter-governmental. I do not need to highlight on this list that efficient exploration of this question is of a certain value in the discussion on the future legal status of ICANN. As long as no solution is available to create non-profit organizations directly at the global level, we are all stuck with the alternative of either an entity based in one country (and then why this one rather than another one ?) or an international organization in the traditional sense (that requires a treaty between states). --------------------------- For all the reasons above, and even if for a large part the debate is a rehashed one, those two issues have an importance that goes beyond the IGC itself. Do not hesitate to address them, the contribution can be greater than you think. Best Bertrand (in a personal capacity of course) -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 13 12:52:49 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:52:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not exactly sure what Bertrand means by "civil society" actors but it seems to me that there is already significant focus on "individuals" as participants in IG processes by for example Diplo and the IGF. What seems to me to be lacking and something that should be of concern to the IGC both in the context of the IGF and elsewhere is lack of significant participation (or even organizational development) on the part of a wider range of Internet related civil society organizations particularly those with a more grassroots and practitioner base and orientation although this seem to be starting to develop through the regional IGFs. We need go no further than our television screens or online news services to see the significance of grassroots civil society currently in Copenhagen. There were similar manifestations around the Beijing Women's conference and very significant grassroots civil society coaltions in areas such as the International Land Coaliton www.landcoaliton.org Focussing rather less on identifying individuals to bring into this rather rarefied fold and rather more on linking with and enabling groups with a broader range of practical on the ground Internet related concerns might be a useful exercise all round. Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation Dear all, just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. 1) on funding Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether it is called a "project" or not) : facilitating the participation of civil society actors from developing countries in Internet Governance Processes. It can take the form of supporting/organizing remote hubs and participatory tools, supporting the emergence of local (national and regional) IGFs, or even selecting and funding the physical participation of individuals in the global IGF. All this is already done to a certain level. Soliciting funding from Foundations to develop such activities (provided there is clear procedures, transparency, etc...) would be very valuable. In addition, this would require defining selection criteria and procedures that would be fair, transparent, as well as geographically and gender balanced, which is not an easy task. But any solution that the IGC would come up with could be an important contribution. Everybody is trying to find a proper answer to this question, including well intentioned governments : apart from elections and NomComs, what are the possible modalities to form multi-stakeholder groups (like the MAG or any thematic working group) ? The IGC has been instrumental in dreaming the Forum; can it now contribute to developing some of its working methods ? 2) On incorporation As I think I have mentioned a few years ago on this list when the same discussion had emerged, the challenge is : what are the possibilities to create a structure directly at the international level ? Today, any association must be based in one country and then develop its activities in other countries by setting up subsidiaries, etc... Could there be a way to establish something directly at the global level ? We have heard that Switzerland has created a new status for international non-for profit organizations that would do just that, ie : allowing the creation of an international organization that is not inter-governmental. I do not need to highlight on this list that efficient exploration of this question is of a certain value in the discussion on the future legal status of ICANN. As long as no solution is available to create non-profit organizations directly at the global level, we are all stuck with the alternative of either an entity based in one country (and then why this one rather than another one ?) or an international organization in the traditional sense (that requires a treaty between states). --------------------------- For all the reasons above, and even if for a large part the debate is a rehashed one, those two issues have an importance that goes beyond the IGC itself. Do not hesitate to address them, the contribution can be greater than you think. Best Bertrand (in a personal capacity of course) -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Dec 13 13:33:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:33:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <618652.87908.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I ask a very serious question that seems to not be a "wanted" subject.   Do we want this outreach into the underdeveloped nations and regions so that more individuals in poverty have a voice?   I really do not see the goal outlined anywhere.  Is there another reason for focusing on developing nations?  For the purpose of moving forward in governance, I do not see the connect between this feel good "feed the people" approach and actually developing policy in governance.  What goal is being achieved?  We are not in a position to help them set up their own governance, and they are not in a position to help set up global policy on internet governance.  If we are not extending rights to vote or freedoms heretofor denied or feeding someone -- what are we doing? --- On Sun, 12/13/09, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 2:26 PM Dear all, just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. 1) on funding Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether it is called a "project" or not) : facilitating the participation of civil society actors from developing countries in Internet Governance Processes.  It can take the form of supporting/organizing remote hubs and participatory tools, supporting the emergence of local (national and regional) IGFs, or even selecting and funding the physical participation of individuals in the global IGF. All this is already done to a certain level. Soliciting funding from Foundations to develop such activities (provided there is clear procedures, transparency, etc...) would be very valuable. In addition, this would require defining selection criteria and procedures that would be fair, transparent, as well as geographically and gender balanced, which is not an easy task. But any solution that the IGC would come up with could be an important contribution. Everybody is trying to find a proper answer to this question, including well intentioned governments : apart from elections and NomComs, what are the possible modalities to form multi-stakeholder groups (like the MAG or any thematic working group) ? The IGC has been instrumental in dreaming the Forum; can it now contribute to developing some of its working methods ? 2) On incorporation As I think I have mentioned a few years ago on this list when the same discussion had emerged, the challenge is : what are the possibilities to create a structure directly at the international level ? Today, any association must be based in one country and then develop its activities in other countries by setting up subsidiaries, etc... Could there be a way to establish something directly at the global level ? We have heard that Switzerland has created a new status for international non-for profit organizations that would do just that, ie : allowing the creation of an international organization that is not inter-governmental. I do not need to highlight on this list that efficient exploration of this question is of a certain value in the discussion on the future legal status of ICANN. As long as no solution is available to create non-profit organizations directly at the global level, we are all stuck with the alternative of either an entity based in one country (and then why this one rather than another one ?) or an international organization in the traditional sense (that requires a treaty between states). --------------------------- For all the reasons above, and even if for a large part the debate is a rehashed one, those two issues have an importance that goes beyond the IGC itself. Do not hesitate to address them, the contribution can be greater than you think. Best Bertrand (in a personal capacity of course) -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----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 Sun Dec 13 19:46:15 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:46:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912131646s474e95a0r99167ddb77b46208@mail.gmail.com> Dear Bertrand, Your ideas are very similar to what I shared elsewhere on the thread on this and is given below: Fouad Bajwa to governance at lists.cpsr.org, William Drake date Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:41 PM subject Re: [governance] IGC All members should opine: this is important Dec 12 (1 day ago) Dear all, What Bill shares strikes a very good set of points that also tend to answer Siva's question and many of the questions that are popping up including where is the project but the point I've been trying to emphasize on is where is the consensus and the consensus has to be managed the same way we build consensus for all our initiatives: IGC at the moment has 6 critical projects either in adoption or application: 1. IGC on Internet Rights 2. IGC on Development Agenda for Internet Governance or simply IG4D and the Political Economy of IG 3. IG Capacity Building 4. Developing Country Participation 5. CS Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Impact Assessment of the IGF . 6. IGC Infrastructure both brick and mortar as well as the Cloud I recollect and suggest the following few things: 1. We could reformulate and reorganize or simply said, institutionalize (both legally and infrastructure) in Geneva as IGC an international CS organization with a permanent address and location in Geneva giving us a brick and mortar identity and a recognition that we do exist as an off-line office-d Civil Society Organization that organizes itself, its mission, its objectives, its members virtually and monitors the IGF and works closely with the IGF Secretariat to achieve maximum Civil Society stakeholder engagement in the IGF. 2. All CS members of IGC from their various countries host the liaison or country offices or country group spaces of IGC meaning, IGC Brazi, IGC India, IGC (country) and connect with the Umbrella IGC in Geneva. Board selections and officers will be on a one year rotation enabling everyone to participate in its official role and its management. Seats will be equally allocated between developing/developed world CS Individuals, Groups, Communities, Associations, Academia and Research so that a balance is maintained for self-organization. The structure can be full voluntary with paid staff if the funds available. The role is facilitation of CS in the IGF process in accordance with the IGC Charter that already exists. We need to plan and organize our strategy. Bill is based in Geneva and so are some of our IGC members that can play this important first step to organizing the on ground presence of IGC in Geneva. The IGC Co-ordinator can be suggested to be IGC's first step into managing the Geneva office with the officers helping found it. The IGC Co-ordinator with the Co-Coordinator can lead this with the board. 3. There are lot of project directions including our combined IGC stances on Internet Rights, Development Agenda, Capacity Building and Developing Country Participation and finally the CS Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Impact Assessment of the IGF . These are five critical areas to take forward plus six the infrastructure. The IGC Headquarters in Geneva can act as a facility that could help in assisting participating CS members in Geneva providing a space for meets, helping out in campaigning, training, educating, facilitation preparations for open consultations and MAG meetings. I see a large number of engagement points for the IGC in Geneva. Its collaboration with Diplo Foundation, the EURODIG, the South IG Summer School capacity building initiatives, Research and Developments based on Kati's idea, advocacy based on Jeremy's ideas, having a strong centre on the ground in Genvea gives the strong structure that Civil Society is evolving 4. We need our own IGC Cloud/Server environment (could be a cloud service or hosted at a partner university). We need a single domain infrastructure to host a multitasking activity environment including our website, our mailing list, our social network and our action oriented action environment. Basically our communication plan and infrastructure. Let me come back to you with more clear ideas, suggestions on this. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. > > 1) on funding > > Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... > there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 13 19:51:58 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:51:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0912130626r4e9c9ec0r5cf30d82cea6a9dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912131651i5debeatfcf0222bd472060f@mail.gmail.com> I think everyone is in suggestion mode sharing ideas at the moment so we should just collect the suggestions, ideas and thoughts at the moment and as shared elsewhere in another thread on this topic we can collect all these responses from all of us members and put them together in a single document and have a survey/vote for consensus on the ideas and suggestions to go forward with. Regarding the concern here, I think if we look at the IGC membership list, participants like us from the developing world are a good answer of both individual and organizational civil society actors. I feel that we are all currently suggesting so critic should be limited at this stage till the collection of suggestion comes out for consensus comments and suggestions. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm not exactly sure what Bertrand means by "civil society" actors but it > seems to me that there is already significant focus on "individuals" as > participants in IG processes by for example Diplo and the IGF.  What seems > to me to be lacking and something that should be of concern to the IGC both > in the context of the IGF and elsewhere is lack of significant participation > (or even organizational development) on the part of a wider range of > Internet related civil society organizations particularly those with a more > grassroots and practitioner base and orientation although this seem to be > starting to develop through the regional IGFs. > > We need go no further than our television screens or online news services to > see the significance of grassroots civil society currently in Copenhagen. > There were similar manifestations around the Beijing Women's conference and > very significant grassroots civil society coaltions in areas such as the > International Land Coaliton www.landcoaliton.org > > Focussing rather less on identifying individuals to bring into this rather > rarefied fold and rather more on linking with and enabling groups with a > broader range of practical on the ground Internet related concerns might be > a useful exercise all round. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation > > Dear all, > > just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. > > 1) on funding > > Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... > there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether > it is called a "project" or not) : facilitating the participation of civil > society actors from developing countries in Internet Governance Processes. > It can take the form of supporting/organizing remote hubs and participatory > tools, supporting the emergence of local (national and regional) IGFs, or > even selecting and funding the physical participation of individuals in the > global IGF. All this is already done to a certain level. Soliciting funding > from Foundations to develop such activities (provided there is clear > procedures, transparency, etc...) would be very valuable. > > In addition, this would require defining selection criteria and procedures > that would be fair, transparent, as well as geographically and gender > balanced, which is not an easy task. But any solution that the IGC would > come up with could be an important contribution. Everybody is trying to find > a proper answer to this question, including well intentioned governments : > apart from elections and NomComs, what are the possible modalities to form > multi-stakeholder groups (like the MAG or any thematic working group) ? The > IGC has been instrumental in dreaming the Forum; can it now contribute to > developing some of its working methods ? > > 2) On incorporation > > As I think I have mentioned a few years ago on this list when the same > discussion had emerged, the challenge is : what are the possibilities to > create a structure directly at the international level ? Today, any > association must be based in one country and then develop its activities in > other countries by setting up subsidiaries, etc... Could there be a way to > establish something directly at the global level ? > > We have heard that Switzerland has created a new status for international > non-for profit organizations that would do just that, ie : allowing the > creation of an international organization that is not inter-governmental. I > do not need to highlight on this list that efficient exploration of this > question is of a certain value in the discussion on the future legal status > of ICANN. > > As long as no solution is available to create non-profit organizations > directly at the global level, we are all stuck with the alternative of > either an entity based in one country (and then why this one rather than > another one ?) or an international organization in the traditional sense > (that requires a treaty between states). > > --------------------------- > > For all the reasons above, and even if for a large part the debate is a > rehashed one, those two issues have an importance that goes beyond the IGC > itself. Do not hesitate to address them, the contribution can be greater > than you think. > > Best > > Bertrand (in a personal capacity of course) > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 meryem at marzouki.info Tue Dec 15 03:41:53 2009 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:41:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Civil Society Data Protection Award Message-ID: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> Dear all, Please find enclosed a joint press release by two european associations, AEDH (association for the defense of human rights) and EDRI (European digital rights), who have joined forces to launch a new initiative: the ECSDPA (European Civil Society Data Protection Award). The call for nominations is at: http://www.ecsdpa.org. The first ECSDPA will be awarded on 28 January 2010, as a European civil society contribution to the Data Protection day. I hope you will participate to the nomination process, and help disseminate this information. Best, Meryem Marzouki -- Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France Email: Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECSDPA-PR-151209en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kamna.malik at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 01:40:52 2009 From: kamna.malik at gmail.com (Kamna Malik) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:10:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative Web...IGI Publishing Message-ID: Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - *Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies and Patterns* To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary To be published by IGI Global Publishing. *Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: *- *Journey of the Web:* History and stages of growth of the web, emerging Web tools and their applications - *Individual aspects:* Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape of individuals - *Business aspects:* Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, products and services, changing forms of organization structure and dynamics, extent of technology friendliness, control versus trust, competitive landscape of business – practices, strategies and patterns - *Social aspects:* Emergence of the virtual world, development of communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations - *Information System aspects:* IS organization structure, future forms of information infrastructure, information security, integrity and assurance, competitive landscape of information systems function - *Ethical and Legal aspects:* IP ownership, ethical blogging, information policies and practices *Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010* *Proposal Decision by: January 20, 2010* *Full Chapter Submission by: March 5, 2010* Complete call for chapters is available at http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 For submissions and queries, please write to kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 16 06:02:18 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:02:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, Several years ago I saw a call for papers like this one, and from the same publisher. The topic was connected with networking and diversity and very much in line with my own interests. I submitted a proposal for a chapter which was accepted. I spent the next three or four months stealing time which didn’t really exist so that I could complete the project inside the deadline. Almost as an afterthought, on the Sunday before the final Wednesday deadline, the editor circulated the contract for signature. The contract required me to sign over to the publisher, absolutely, every vestige of my copyright in the material, whether it was eventually published or not. In return would come “enhancement to my reputation” from my work being included in the publication. I withdrew the work immediately. I had already broken the terms of the contract since I had already shared the document for comments with other people in the field. I contacted the other chapter authors but no one seemed to share my outrage at these conditions. One man was in fact quite rude to me :-) I understand that contracts like the one I was sent are customary – a rule rather than an exception. I also understand the imperatives of “publish or perish”. However I expect there are still people who subscribe to an ethic of sharing and open content. To those I would like to suggest that they avoid the trap I fell into and ask to see the contract BEFORE they embark on the project. Let me be absolutely clear – this is not about money, but about rights, and specifically about the right to share. Deirdre 2009/12/16 Kamna Malik : > Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - > > > > Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies and > Patterns > > > > To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary > >  To be published by IGI Global Publishing. > > > > Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: > - Journey of the Web: History and stages of growth of the web, emerging Web > tools and their applications > - Individual aspects: Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape of > individuals > - Business aspects: Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, products > and services, changing forms of organization structure and dynamics, extent > of technology friendliness, control versus trust, competitive landscape of > business – practices, strategies and patterns > - Social aspects: Emergence of the virtual world, development of > communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations > - Information System aspects: IS organization structure, future forms of > information infrastructure, information security, integrity and assurance, > competitive landscape of information systems function > - Ethical and Legal aspects: IP ownership, ethical blogging, information > policies and practices > > > > Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010 > > Proposal Decision by:  January 20, 2010 > > Full Chapter Submission by:  March 5, 2010 > > > > Complete call for chapters is available at > > http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 > > > > > > For submissions and queries, please write to kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Dec 16 06:34:58 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:34:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B28C5E2.20605@wzb.eu> Hi Deidre, buy-out contracts are the norm in academic publishing. It is really ironic that those who call for stronger legislation against so-called theft or piracy don't respect those laws in the first place. Yet, things are changing. The public access movement has been able to negotiate new contracts with publishers. Many of the major academic publishers are now willing to grant you the right of publishing a copy of your work on your website or in a public repository. You just need to ask for it. Below is the reply I got from Cambridge University Press last week. It concerns an article for an edited volume: We "feel that we are in the best position to exploit the book, in print and electronically and would prefer it that way. However, if you feel you would rather put your text on your own website then we do have a clause that needs to be added/changed in the contract and I will re-issue if needed." If people keep asking, the standard contracts will change! jeanette Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Several years ago I saw a call for papers like this one, and from the > same publisher. The topic was connected with networking and diversity > and very much in line with my own interests. I submitted a proposal > for a chapter which was accepted. I spent the next three or four > months stealing time which didn’t really exist so that I could > complete the project inside the deadline. Almost as an afterthought, > on the Sunday before the final Wednesday deadline, the editor > circulated the contract for signature. The contract required me to > sign over to the publisher, absolutely, every vestige of my copyright > in the material, whether it was eventually published or not. In return > would come “enhancement to my reputation” from my work being included > in the publication. > > I withdrew the work immediately. I had already broken the terms of the > contract since I had already shared the document for comments with > other people in the field. > > I contacted the other chapter authors but no one seemed to share my > outrage at these conditions. One man was in fact quite rude to me :-) > I understand that contracts like the one I was sent are customary – a > rule rather than an exception. I also understand the imperatives of > “publish or perish”. However I expect there are still people who > subscribe to an ethic of sharing and open content. To those I would > like to suggest that they avoid the trap I fell into and ask to see > the contract BEFORE they embark on the project. > > Let me be absolutely clear – this is not about money, but about > rights, and specifically about the right to share. > > Deirdre > > > 2009/12/16 Kamna Malik : >> Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - >> >> >> >> Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies and >> Patterns >> >> >> >> To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary >> >> To be published by IGI Global Publishing. >> >> >> >> Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: >> - Journey of the Web: History and stages of growth of the web, emerging Web >> tools and their applications >> - Individual aspects: Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape of >> individuals >> - Business aspects: Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, products >> and services, changing forms of organization structure and dynamics, extent >> of technology friendliness, control versus trust, competitive landscape of >> business – practices, strategies and patterns >> - Social aspects: Emergence of the virtual world, development of >> communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations >> - Information System aspects: IS organization structure, future forms of >> information infrastructure, information security, integrity and assurance, >> competitive landscape of information systems function >> - Ethical and Legal aspects: IP ownership, ethical blogging, information >> policies and practices >> >> >> >> Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010 >> >> Proposal Decision by: January 20, 2010 >> >> Full Chapter Submission by: March 5, 2010 >> >> >> >> Complete call for chapters is available at >> >> http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 >> >> >> >> >> >> For submissions and queries, please write to kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 11:48:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:48:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912131651i5debeatfcf0222bd472060f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <498039.34544.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" , "Ginger Paque" , "Ian Peter" Cc: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 12:51 AM I think everyone is in suggestion mode sharing ideas at the moment so we should just collect the suggestions, ideas and thoughts at the moment and as shared elsewhere in another thread on this topic we can collect all these responses from all of us members and put them together in a single document and have a survey/vote for consensus on the ideas and suggestions to go forward with. Regarding the concern here, I think if we look at the IGC membership list, participants like us from the developing world are a good answer of both individual and organizational civil society actors. I feel that we are all currently suggesting so critic should be limited at this stage till the collection of suggestion comes out for consensus comments and suggestions. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm not exactly sure what Bertrand means by "civil society" actors but it > seems to me that there is already significant focus on "individuals" as > participants in IG processes by for example Diplo and the IGF.  What seems > to me to be lacking and something that should be of concern to the IGC both > in the context of the IGF and elsewhere is lack of significant participation > (or even organizational development) on the part of a wider range of > Internet related civil society organizations particularly those with a more > grassroots and practitioner base and orientation although this seem to be > starting to develop through the regional IGFs. > > We need go no further than our television screens or online news services to > see the significance of grassroots civil society currently in Copenhagen. > There were similar manifestations around the Beijing Women's conference and > very significant grassroots civil society coaltions in areas such as the > International Land Coaliton www.landcoaliton.org > > Focussing rather less on identifying individuals to bring into this rather > rarefied fold and rather more on linking with and enabling groups with a > broader range of practical on the ground Internet related concerns might be > a useful exercise all round. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation > > Dear all, > > just two cents on the topics in the title recently raised on the list. > > 1) on funding > > Irrespective of possible sources, amounts, structures, procedures, etc... > there is a function that the IGC has some legitimacy to undertake (whether > it is called a "project" or not) : facilitating the participation of civil > society actors from developing countries in Internet Governance Processes. > It can take the form of supporting/organizing remote hubs and participatory > tools, supporting the emergence of local (national and regional) IGFs, or > even selecting and funding the physical participation of individuals in the > global IGF. All this is already done to a certain level. Soliciting funding > from Foundations to develop such activities (provided there is clear > procedures, transparency, etc...) would be very valuable. > > In addition, this would require defining selection criteria and procedures > that would be fair, transparent, as well as geographically and gender > balanced, which is not an easy task. But any solution that the IGC would > come up with could be an important contribution. Everybody is trying to find > a proper answer to this question, including well intentioned governments : > apart from elections and NomComs, what are the possible modalities to form > multi-stakeholder groups (like the MAG or any thematic working group) ? The > IGC has been instrumental in dreaming the Forum; can it now contribute to > developing some of its working methods ? > > 2) On incorporation > > As I think I have mentioned a few years ago on this list when the same > discussion had emerged, the challenge is : what are the possibilities to > create a structure directly at the international level ? Today, any > association must be based in one country and then develop its activities in > other countries by setting up subsidiaries, etc... Could there be a way to > establish something directly at the global level ? > > We have heard that Switzerland has created a new status for international > non-for profit organizations that would do just that, ie : allowing the > creation of an international organization that is not inter-governmental. I > do not need to highlight on this list that efficient exploration of this > question is of a certain value in the discussion on the future legal status > of ICANN. > > As long as no solution is available to create non-profit organizations > directly at the global level, we are all stuck with the alternative of > either an entity based in one country (and then why this one rather than > another one ?) or an international organization in the traditional sense > (that requires a treaty between states). > > --------------------------- > > For all the reasons above, and even if for a large part the debate is a > rehashed one, those two issues have an importance that goes beyond the IGC > itself. Do not hesitate to address them, the contribution can be greater > than you think. > > Best > > Bertrand (in a personal capacity of course) > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 16 12:03:44 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:03:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] On Funding and Incorporation In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912131651i5debeatfcf0222bd472060f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <941177.86173.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>     Fouad,   Very clearly what you are trying to do here is stifle intellectual discourse.  It may make you uncomfortable or someone else feel inadequate.  That is life.  It is very important that you do not try to "dummy down" intelligent and analytical debate in order to make it feel good or help to reach a consensus. "critic" is essential in higher thought.  You must not enable those who are unwilling or illsuited for thesis and thesis defense and attack, by stopping a method of finding truths that is much older than your nation and as constant as the written word.   Sometimes in respectful human interface it is the brightest and most talented that need protection from attack or censorship.  We cannot always feel sorry for those who take offense easily as a defensive mechanism to avoid doing the hard intellectual work of debate. Mental laziness or ignorance is not a protected handicap or disability.  In some arenas the players must qualify in order to participate. --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Fouad Bajwa  wrote: Regarding the concern here, I think if we look at the IGC membership list, participants like us from the developing world are a good answer of both individual and organizational civil society actors. I feel that we are all currently suggesting so critic should be limited at this stage till the collection of suggestion comes out for consensus comments and suggestions.   ven organizational development) on the part of a wider range of > Internet related civil society organizations particularly those with a more > grassroots and practitioner base and orientation although this seem to be > starting to develop through the regional IGFs. > > We need go no further than our television screens or online news services to > see the significance of grassroots civil society currently in Copenhagen. > There were similar manifestations around the Beijing Women's conference and > very significant grassroots civil society coaltions in areas such as the > International Land Coaliton www.landcoaliton.org > > Focussing rather less on identifying individuals to bring into this rather > rarefied fold and rather more on linking with and enabling groups with a > broader range of practical on the ground Internet related concerns might be > a useful exercise all round. > > Mike Gurstein > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 12:52:38 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:52:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation In-Reply-To: <225687-US-BAT01Lf4b00015e9a@batch1.us.confirmit.com> Message-ID: <251575.57207.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I do not predict but I know.  Mass information at our fingertips is growing. Ease of access and universality is becoming a reality. This we have seen for a decade.  But what we cannot control and what is becoming a common truth is  that we are learning to use this knowledge base.   As it takes a pianist time to master the keys, as it takes an athlete years of training to reach a pinnacle, so it is also true with knowledge. As individuals we are mastering our abilities and it is becoming common place to not only access but to appropriately apply that knowledge.  As individuals master and display and add to others quality of life, they, by example attract others -- we see this in workplace, home and family, school and entertainment.  This synergism is too powerful to control, too good to rein in and invincible in the battlefield of social justice.   We will see in the coming decade a change in paradigm.  Governance will change from the primary need to control those governing to a more enlightened approach of empowering the governed.  Knowledge will begin to replace hype and marketing and soundbites.  Reason with a foundation in truth will begin to replace herd mentality.  The most unnoticeable yet most overwhelming force will be a shift in language communication that will allow those now separated by perceived lack of commonality to become inseparable by common understanding.   There is and will be a major war like never before seen.  It will be the institutionalized machinery of conflict whose main weapon is ignorance versus the universal acceptance of rights and diversity whose main weapon is knowledge and understanding. There is no doubt that in this conflagration that finally reason will triumph. --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Lee Rainie wrote: From: Lee Rainie Subject: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation To: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 4:39 PM A few weeks ago, you might have received an email from The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Elon University inviting you to participate in our ongoing survey of stakeholders about the future of the internet. We are very interested in including your views in our research and hope you can find time between now and the end of the year to complete the questionnaire. This web-based survey about international concerns and the internet follows three previous surveys of thousands of internet stakeholders that measured the expected impact of the internet over the next decade (to see the results, please go to (www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/default.xhtml). This year, we are soliciting predictions from thoughtful analysts in regard to a number of additional issues tied to the future of information and communications technologies (ICTs). We hope you'll take 20 to 25 minutes to fill out our survey (to participate, you must use Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari as your browser). You will find the survey at:http://survey.confirmit.com/wix/p1075078513.aspx The survey asks you to choose between alternative outcomes of the impact of the internet and mobile connectivity and to contribute your own thoughts about what you believe should or will happen by the year 2020. This is a confidential survey. However, we encourage you to take credit for your thoughts. After each question, you are invited to explain or expand on your views. Each elaboration you provide will remain anonymous unless you put your name at the start of it. When you begin the survey, please use this personal identification number (PIN): YMCNF The Pew Internet Project will issue a report based on this survey in late winter 2010; we expect the results to be useful to policy makers, scholars and those in the information technology industry. Material from this survey will be added to the Elon University/Pew Internet site, Imagining the Internet (www.imaginingtheinternet.org). We will not use your name or email address for any purpose other than this research project, and we will not share your information with outside solicitors. We are certain we have not identified all individuals whose views would be helpful to this research, so I invite you to send an invitation to participate in this survey to any friends or colleagues whose insights would be of value. Please ask them to use PIN 9000 when taking the survey. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at lrainie at pewinternet.org. Thank you, Lee Rainie Director, Pew Internet & American Life Project 1615 L Street NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.419-4500 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 13:04:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:04:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative In-Reply-To: <4B28C5E2.20605@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <414383.24913.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you Jeanette for this,   I believe that most people who create good works need to make a living.  But there are other aspects on life that need tending to also. Giving and personal growth may sound like just fuzzy wuzzy warm feeling stuff but in fact most creative writers know that in the mental factory these are elements that are required to keep the motivation for continuing in good form alive.  I think that in this corporate response we actually are seeing very bright and informed business people.  Business fairs far better in encouraging intellectual sharing and will get more production from producers if they are challenged and engaged by peers and students and antagonists alike.  This should not be viewed myoptically as alturism, this is just a damn fine way to get more work out of the plowhorse.  Bravo to all involved. Success in this model will be followed. --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Deirdre Williams" Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 11:34 AM Hi Deidre, buy-out contracts are the norm in academic publishing. It is really ironic that those who call for stronger legislation against so-called theft or piracy don't respect those laws in the first place. Yet, things are changing. The public access movement has been able to negotiate new contracts with publishers. Many of the major academic publishers are now willing to grant you the right of publishing a copy of your work on your website or in a public repository. You just need to ask for it. Below is the reply I got from Cambridge University Press last week. It concerns an article for an edited volume: We "feel that we are in the best position to exploit the book, in print and electronically and would prefer it that way.  However,   if you feel you would rather put your text on your own website then we do have a clause that needs to be added/changed in the contract and I will re-issue if needed." If people keep asking, the standard contracts will change! jeanette Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Several years ago I saw a call for papers like this one, and from the > same publisher. The topic was connected with networking and diversity > and very much in line with my own interests. I submitted a proposal > for a chapter which was accepted. I spent the next three or four > months stealing time which didn’t really exist so that I could > complete the project inside the deadline. Almost as an afterthought, > on the Sunday before the final Wednesday deadline, the editor > circulated the contract for signature. The contract required me to > sign over to the publisher, absolutely, every vestige of my copyright > in the material, whether it was eventually published or not. In return > would come “enhancement to my reputation” from my work being included > in the publication. > > I withdrew the work immediately. I had already broken the terms of the > contract since I had already shared the document for comments with > other people in the field. > > I contacted the other chapter authors but no one seemed to share my > outrage at these conditions. One man was in fact quite rude to me :-) > I understand that contracts like the one I was sent are customary – a > rule rather than an exception. I also understand the imperatives of > “publish or perish”. However I expect there are still people who > subscribe to an ethic of sharing and open content. To those I would > like to suggest that they avoid the trap I fell into and ask to see > the contract BEFORE they embark on the project. > > Let me be absolutely clear – this is not about money, but about > rights, and specifically about the right to share. > > Deirdre > > > 2009/12/16 Kamna Malik : >> Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - >> >> >> >> Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies and >> Patterns >> >> >> >> To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary >> >>  To be published by IGI Global Publishing. >> >> >> >> Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: >> - Journey of the Web: History and stages of growth of the web, emerging Web >> tools and their applications >> - Individual aspects: Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape of >> individuals >> - Business aspects: Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, products >> and services, changing forms of organization structure and dynamics, extent >> of technology friendliness, control versus trust, competitive landscape of >> business – practices, strategies and patterns >> - Social aspects: Emergence of the virtual world, development of >> communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations >> - Information System aspects: IS organization structure, future forms of >> information infrastructure, information security, integrity and assurance, >> competitive landscape of information systems function >> - Ethical and Legal aspects: IP ownership, ethical blogging, information >> policies and practices >> >> >> >> Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010 >> >> Proposal Decision by:  January 20, 2010 >> >> Full Chapter Submission by:  March 5, 2010 >> >> >> >> Complete call for chapters is available at >> >> http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 >> >> >> >> >> >> For submissions and queries, please write to kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 13:13:30 2009 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:13:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation In-Reply-To: <251575.57207.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <225687-US-BAT01Lf4b00015e9a@batch1.us.confirmit.com> <251575.57207.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <58762b1a0912161013r29a19330m52ccb9055f16a5f@mail.gmail.com> I found the binary and linear assumptions behind the questions to be frustrating and unrelated to reality. I ended up choosing neither in most cases. Best, Rebecca On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I do not predict but I know. Mass information at our fingertips is > growing. Ease of access and universality is becoming a reality. This we have > seen for a decade. But what we cannot control and what is becoming a common > truth is that we are learning to use this knowledge base. > > As it takes a pianist time to master the keys, as it takes an athlete years > of training to reach a pinnacle, so it is also true with knowledge. As > individuals we are mastering our abilities and it is becoming common place > to not only access but to appropriately apply that knowledge. As > individuals master and display and add to others quality of life, they, by > example attract others -- we see this in workplace, home and family, school > and entertainment. This synergism is too powerful to control, too good to > rein in and invincible in the battlefield of social justice. > > We will see in the coming decade a change in paradigm. Governance will > change from the primary need to control those governing to a more > enlightened approach of empowering the governed. Knowledge will begin to > replace hype and marketing and soundbites. Reason with a foundation in > truth will begin to replace herd mentality. The most unnoticeable yet most > overwhelming force will be a shift in language communication that will allow > those now separated by perceived lack of commonality to become inseparable > by common understanding. > > There is and will be a major war like never before seen. It will be the > institutionalized machinery of conflict whose main weapon is ignorance > versus the universal acceptance of rights and diversity whose main weapon is > knowledge and understanding. There is no doubt that in this conflagration > that finally reason will triumph. > > --- On *Wed, 12/16/09, Lee Rainie * wrote: > > > From: Lee Rainie > Subject: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation > To: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net > Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 4:39 PM > > A few weeks ago, you might have received an email from The Pew Research > Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Elon University inviting you > to participate in our ongoing survey of stakeholders about the future of the > internet. We are very interested in including your views in our research and > hope you can find time between now and the end of the year to complete the > questionnaire. > This web-based survey about international concerns and the internet follows > three previous surveys of thousands of internet stakeholders that measured > the expected impact of the internet over the next decade (to see the > results, please go to ( > www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/default.xhtml). This year, we > are soliciting predictions from thoughtful analysts in regard to a number of > additional issues tied to the future of information and communications > technologies (ICTs). > We hope you'll take 20 to 25 minutes to fill out our survey (to > participate, you must use Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari as your > browser). You will find the survey at: > *http://survey.confirmit.com/wix/p1075078513.aspx* > The survey asks you to choose between alternative outcomes of the impact of > the internet and mobile connectivity and to contribute your own thoughts > about what you believe should or will happen by the year 2020. This is a > confidential survey. However, we encourage you to take credit for your > thoughts. After each question, you are invited to explain or expand on your > views. Each elaboration you provide will remain anonymous unless you put > your name at the start of it. > When you begin the survey, please use this personal identification number > (PIN): *YMCNF* > The Pew Internet Project will issue a report based on this survey in late > winter 2010; we expect the results to be useful to policy makers, scholars > and those in the information technology industry. Material from this survey > will be added to the Elon University/Pew Internet site, Imagining the > Internet (www.imaginingtheinternet.org). We will not use your name or > email address for any purpose other than this research project, and we will > not share your information with outside solicitors. > We are certain we have not identified all individuals whose views would be > helpful to this research, so I invite you to send an invitation to > participate in this survey to any friends or colleagues whose insights would > be of value. Please ask them to use PIN 9000 when taking the survey. If > you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at > lrainie at pewinternet.org > . > > Thank you, > Lee Rainie > Director, Pew Internet & American Life Project > 1615 L Street NW > Suite 700 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202.419-4500 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk) will stop working in January. Please use my gmail instead (see below). Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Tel: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From andersj at elon.edu Wed Dec 16 13:30:00 2009 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:30:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation In-Reply-To: <58762b1a0912161013r29a19330m52ccb9055f16a5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As a co-author of the survey, I thank those who are participating, and I want to point out that the reason behind the survey structure is to elicit responses that reveal people¹s attitudes about the issues we must tackle today in order to best serve the common good tomorrow. The ³tension pairs² presented were constructed after a consultation with a group of leading Internet researchers. People are encouraged to respond in any way they like and we take delight in any well-structured answer, including those that poke holes in the construction of the tension pairs, as long as they bring to light informed opinion. We know some people will say both outcomes are likely to certain degrees. The point of the exercise is to elicit educated responses and initiate important conversations. While you can remain anonymous, you are strongly encouraged to take credit for one or more or all of your elaborations by writing your name at the start of each statement you are willing to publicly share. People who provide well-articulated answers that they take credit for not only contribute to the dialogue on future policy and help write the history of the Internet, they often also benefit personally after making contributions because this raises their professional profile. You can see some results from the first three (scenario-based) surveys here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/default.xhtml. Expanded results are published in the ³Future of the Internet² book series published by Cambria Press; it is carried by most research libraries around the globe. What are we asking? Will Google make us stupid? Are reading and writing skills in decline? Are social relations really improved? What are the next takeoff technologies? Those on the IGC list who haven¹t already done so are invited to access our web-based survey, fielded by the independent firm Princeton Survey Research Associates; you must use Firefox, Safari or Internet Explorer as your browser. You will find the survey at: http://survey.confirmit.com/wix2/p1075078513.aspx Please use the PIN 9000. We see this as an opportunity for people to share their hopes and fears for the future and in exposing those hopes and fears they might help us all achieve the best possible future. Best, Janna On 12/16/09 1:13 PM, "Rebecca MacKinnon" wrote: > I found the binary and linear assumptions behind the questions to be > frustrating and unrelated to reality. I ended up choosing neither in most > cases. > Best, > Rebecca > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Eric Dierker > wrote: >> I do not predict but I know.  Mass information at our fingertips is growing. >> Ease of access and universality is becoming a reality. This we have seen for >> a decade.  But what we cannot control and what is becoming a common truth is  >> that we are learning to use this knowledge base. >>   >> As it takes a pianist time to master the keys, as it takes an athlete years >> of training to reach a pinnacle, so it is also true with knowledge. As >> individuals we are mastering our abilities and it is becoming common place to >> not only access but to appropriately apply that knowledge.  As individuals >> master and display and add to others quality of life, they, by example >> attract others -- we see this in workplace, home and family, school and >> entertainment.  This synergism is too powerful to control, too good to rein >> in and invincible in the battlefield of social justice. >>   >> We will see in the coming decade a change in paradigm.  Governance will >> change from the primary need to control those governing to a more enlightened >> approach of empowering the governed.  Knowledge will begin to replace hype >> and marketing and soundbites.  Reason with a foundation in truth will begin >> to replace herd mentality.  The most unnoticeable yet most overwhelming force >> will be a shift in language communication that will allow those now separated >> by perceived lack of commonality to become inseparable by common >> understanding. >>   >> There is and will be a major war like never before seen.  It will be the >> institutionalized machinery of conflict whose main weapon is ignorance versus >> the universal acceptance of rights and diversity whose main weapon is >> knowledge and understanding. There is no doubt that in this conflagration >> that finally reason will triumph. >> >> --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Lee Rainie wrote: >>> >>> From: Lee Rainie >>> Subject: 2009 Predictions Survey invitation >>> To: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net >>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 4:39 PM >>> >>> A few weeks ago, you might have received an email from The Pew Research >>> Center¹s Internet & American Life Project and Elon University inviting you >>> to participate in our ongoing survey of stakeholders about the future of the >>> internet. We are very interested in including your views in our research and >>> hope you can find time between now and the end of the year to complete the >>> questionnaire. >>> This web-based survey about international concerns and the internet follows >>> three previous surveys of thousands of internet stakeholders that measured >>> the expected impact of the internet over the next decade (to see the >>> results, please go to >>> (www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/default.xhtml >>> ). This >>> year, we are soliciting predictions from thoughtful analysts in regard to a >>> number of additional issues tied to the future of information and >>> communications technologies (ICTs). >>> We hope you'll take 20 to 25 minutes to fill out our survey (to participate, >>> you must use Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari as your browser). You will >>> find the survey at: >>> http://survey.confirmit.com/wix/p1075078513.aspx >>> >>> The survey asks you to choose between alternative outcomes of the impact of >>> the internet and mobile connectivity and to contribute your own thoughts >>> about what you believe should or will happen by the year 2020. This is a >>> confidential survey. However, we encourage you to take credit for your >>> thoughts. After each question, you are invited to explain or expand on your >>> views. Each elaboration you provide will remain anonymous unless you put >>> your name at the start of it. >>> When you begin the survey, please use this personal identification number >>> (PIN): YMCNF >>> The Pew Internet Project will issue a report based on this survey in late >>> winter 2010; we expect the results to be useful to policy makers, scholars >>> and those in the information technology industry. Material from this survey >>> will be added to the Elon University/Pew Internet site, Imagining the >>> Internet (www.imaginingtheinternet.org >>> ). We will not use your name or email >>> address for any purpose other than this research project, and we will not >>> share your information with outside solicitors. >>> We are certain we have not identified all individuals whose views would be >>> helpful to this research, so I invite you to send an invitation to >>> participate in this survey to any friends or colleagues whose insights would >>> be of value. Please ask them to use PIN 9000 when taking the survey. If you >>> have any questions, please feel free to contact me at >>> lrainie at pewinternet.org >>> >> bject=Predictions+questions> >>> >> p;subject=Predictions+questions> . >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Lee Rainie >>> Director, Pew Internet & American Life Project >>> 1615 L Street NW >>> Suite 700 >>> Washington, D.C. 20036 >>> 202.419-4500 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Janna Quitney Anderson >>> Director of Imagining the Internet >>> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >>> >>> Associate Professor of Communications >>> Director of Internet Projects >>> School of Communications >>> Elon University >>> andersj at elon.edu >>> (336) 278-5733 (o) >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 13:53:20 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:53:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7DA6C47249264371B60E3D27AED77F21@userPC> My experience with those folks was the same as Deirdre's and my responses have been the same (disclosure: I did publish with them once when I was young and naïve ;-0... But I should also point out that most for-profit academic journal publishers have parallel and similarly restrictive contracts (but yes, this is very much in evolution and the specific nature of the restrictiveness varies from publisher to publisher at this point... For journals this is in some sense even more restrictive since the major problem comes not on the author's side but for the user since most of these publishers have very expensive subscription rates and discriminatorialy expensive rates for access to individual articles. This is how I recently responded to a request to undertake an article review for a commercial publisher who would have charged anywhere from $25-60 for me to read that same article once it was published... "Thanks for the invitation (to review) but as a matter of principle I don't contribute free intellectual labour to non-open access, for-profit journals and particularly when as is the case here, the underlying research was paid for by public funds--this should, in my opinion, only be published in open access journals." Best to all, MBG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics http://ci-journal.net (an open access, open archive journal) -----Original Message----- From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kamna Malik Subject: Re: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative Dear Friends, Several years ago I saw a call for papers like this one, and from the same publisher. The topic was connected with networking and diversity and very much in line with my own interests. I submitted a proposal for a chapter which was accepted. I spent the next three or four months stealing time which didn’t really exist so that I could complete the project inside the deadline. Almost as an afterthought, on the Sunday before the final Wednesday deadline, the editor circulated the contract for signature. The contract required me to sign over to the publisher, absolutely, every vestige of my copyright in the material, whether it was eventually published or not. In return would come “enhancement to my reputation” from my work being included in the publication. I withdrew the work immediately. I had already broken the terms of the contract since I had already shared the document for comments with other people in the field. I contacted the other chapter authors but no one seemed to share my outrage at these conditions. One man was in fact quite rude to me :-) I understand that contracts like the one I was sent are customary – a rule rather than an exception. I also understand the imperatives of “publish or perish”. However I expect there are still people who subscribe to an ethic of sharing and open content. To those I would like to suggest that they avoid the trap I fell into and ask to see the contract BEFORE they embark on the project. Let me be absolutely clear – this is not about money, but about rights, and specifically about the right to share. Deirdre 2009/12/16 Kamna Malik : > Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - > > > > Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies > and Patterns > > > > To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary > >  To be published by IGI Global Publishing. > > > > Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: > - Journey of the Web: History and stages of growth of the web, > emerging Web tools and their applications > - Individual aspects: Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape > of individuals > - Business aspects: Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, > products and services, changing forms of organization structure and > dynamics, extent of technology friendliness, control versus trust, > competitive landscape of business – practices, strategies and patterns > - Social aspects: Emergence of the virtual world, development of > communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations > - Information System aspects: IS organization structure, future forms > of information infrastructure, information security, integrity and > assurance, competitive landscape of information systems function > - Ethical and Legal aspects: IP ownership, ethical blogging, > information policies and practices > > > > Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010 > > Proposal Decision by:  January 20, 2010 > > Full Chapter Submission by:  March 5, 2010 > > > > Complete call for chapters is available at > > http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 > > > > > > For submissions and queries, please write to > kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 05:23:57 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:23:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Dan Schiller: The Communications Revolution Message-ID: <17BB304759754CB08E3E045FA0CA6FDC@userPC> I'm not sure about all the details but an interesting brief global overview of the political economy of ICTs > http://www.counterpunch.org/schiller12162009.html > MBG > The Communications Revolution > > It's a Wired World > > By DAN SCHILLER > > Citigroup bank employed 25,000 software developers and spent an estimated > $4.9bn on information and communication technologies – ICT -- (exclusive > of operating expenses) in 2008 – just before it had to accept a $45bn > bailout from the US government. Before Lehman Brothers collapsed in > September 2008, that firm ran 3,000 applications on 25,000 servers on > several continents. So when the financial crisis erupted in an obscure > corner of the market system’s core, there were network linkages ready to > pulse its death-ray out to what we used to call the periphery. (See the > IMF’s April 2009 study, “How Linkages Fuel the Fire: The Transmission of > Financial Stress from Advanced to Emerging Economies.”) > > The role of the communications industry in the global economic crisis of > 2008 is still largely overlooked. So also is the way finance and > communications are profoundly interrelated. > > In response to a prior downturn in the early 1970s, elites seized upon > information and communications as an element in what David Harvey calls a > “spatio-temporal fix.” The purpose was to help capital find a means of > reigniting profitable market growth. Massive growth in and around the > information sector was an effect before it began to function as a cause. > Profit-seeking investment flooded into ICTs and the idea that we were > transitioning into a benign information society was the new common sense. > > But ICT investment was not merely a function of finance. After the 1970s > profit squeeze, capital accelerated its reorganization of the system of > production through sustained growth of foreign direct investment: capital > outlays to purchase factories, offices, mines and plantations outside a > company’s domestic market. This imperative again gave information and > communications a primary role. > > To restructure production, transnational corporations spent heavily on > ICTs: networks made their cross-border supply chains function. Corporate > information systems were repeatedly re-engineered with continual shifts in > corporate strategy, public policy, market access and networking > technology. From the late 1980s, ICT and software expenditures accounted > for half of overall corporate capital investment. Prodigious sums are > involved: in 2008, US companies and governments spent $1.75 trillion on > technology. > > As communications and information came to lead growth of capitalist > development, technological advances wiped out entire spheres of commerce. > Skype, which provides an internet phone service for free (and better > quality for a fee), claimed 400 million users in 2009. In five years, > Skype has become the world’s largest supplier of cross-border voice > communications. With other VoIP services, Skype puts fierce competitive > pressure on existing carriers that no longer find much profit by > completing telephone calls. Their focus has turned to broadband and > mobile; specialized network offerings aimed at business users also remain > important. > > Cheap network service is supporting a partial re-centralization of > computing and software services, and these challenge the autonomously > configured desktop and notebook computer. Mobiles threaten the growth of > computers and television. There are roughly 4.5bn mobiles, and they are > beginning to function as a ubiquitous and strategic third screen. In the > nine months after Apple opened its first iPhone App Store, 25,000 > applications were published for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and there were > 800m downloads. (That has increased substantially with Apple’s conquest of > China and South Korea.) > > Apple, Amazon and Google are demolishing longstanding oligopolies in > music, book, gaming and film markets. Digitized texts and audiovisual > commodities, and new devices (iPods and e-book readers), draw this > inter-corporate rivalry. As CD markets collapse, the four transnational > conglomerates whose music subsidiaries channel most global musical > recording are being compelled to cede profits to Apple. The half-dozen > transnational conglomerates whose film subsidiaries control global > distribution contend with Google’s YouTube. > > If this seems chaotic, that’s because it is. Our communications and > information system is being thoroughly transformed. Both its quantity and > quality contrast with prior historical patterns, characterized by small > avant-garde projects to revolutionize painting, or the novel, or film; and > by the market-based assimilation of individual new media, such as radio. > Today, the system of information and communications overall is being > reordered. Unlike the pattern set by social revolutions in individual > countries in 1789, 1917 and 1949, patterns of cultural change are being > worked out internationally and, so far, the leading role has been taken > not by popular social movements but by capital. Oppositional impulses have > only occasionally become organized at a politically meaningful level. > > As the technologies of message processing and communication are > revolutionized, wage labor and markets are driven ever farther into > society and culture. The internet is the most important enabling mechanism > for these enlargements of capitalist social relations. That is one reason > why power over the internet is both jealously coveted and fiercely sought. > > Role of the state > > The US role remains disproportionate. Although, in an arresting > development, the Obama administration has recently ceded some authority > over the internet, giving other nations a measure of participation [and to > outflank potential breakaway internets], it would be unwise to conclude > that its power over this crucial infrastructure has been neutralized. > Ultimate decision-making over the domain name system is exercised by a > shadowy mix of US military and state agencies working with a > non-governmental organization and private corporations. > > With some qualifications, Cisco leads the transnational supply of > corporate routing equipment, Google leads on search engines and online > video, Facebook social networking and Apple totemic consumer appliances. > Intel dominates semiconductors, Microsoft desktop operating systems. > > Of the top 25 global IT services/software/internet companies in 2004-5, > only six were not American. (See Catherine L Mann with Jacob Funk > Kirkegaard, Accelerating the Globalisation of America: The Role for > Information Technology, Institute for International Economics, Washington > DC, 2006.) > > The US spares no efforts to spearhead the technologies of cyber-war: more > than half of the 800-odd active satellites orbiting the globe are from the > US. US-based companies not only lead supply, but also demand and use: from > Wal-Mart to General Electric, US corporations’ integration of > internet-based systems and applications set a global standard. > > Those efforts continue to deploy information and communications as a > pathway to renewed US global dominance. Structural change points the other > way: the transition to a more multi-polar political economy will continue > to generate more effective challenges to US dominance, in general and in > communications. > > If we encompass the top 250 ICT companies, there are fewer US-based firms > in the 2006 top 250 panel than in previous years, and more from China, > India, Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore, Brazil, South Africa, the Russian > Federation, Egypt and other countries. Impressive units of non-US capital > have been built in Europe, Japan and beyond: Samsung, Nokia, Nintendo, > Huawei, Tata, SAP, Telefonica, DoCoMo, America Movil, Vodafone, China > Mobile. Significant transnational network assets have passed for the first > time in history to capitalists based in countries of the South: Mexico, > India and China. > > US leaders still turn to communications in their bid to renew US global > power, and so the influence of the industry in US policymaking grows. > Barack Obama is called the Silicon president , and his first major > domestic initiative, to push through Congress a big fiscal stimulus > package, built political momentum before his election by winning support > from executives at Google, IBM and the Information Technology Industry > Council. This group put information in the foreground of the recovery > program. Its members lobbied to include in the stimulus legislation money > for broadband deployment, computerized healthcare records and an > ICT-intensive (smart) power grid, all likely to boost their own profits, > and all provisions of the law signed by Obama in February 2009. Dean > Garfield, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, said > afterwards: “It is good to be heard”. > > “The question is what will be the global growth engine?” asked Dominique > Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF, in September – adding that “there is no > easy answer”. Do communications have more potential to rejuvenate global > capitalism as they did a generation ago? > > For all the ballyhoo about a recovery, many of the world’s largest > financial institutions remain on government life support. The US > government has a controlling interest in two-thirds of the US automobile > industry, and consumption and employment are not recovering. The crisis is > biting deeply, but unevenly. > > While corporate profits are beginning to lift, automobiles, financial > services, agricultural raw materials, metals, electronics and minerals are > still down. > > What about communications? From October to December 2008, consumer and > business markets for ICT collapsed. But within this gigantic industry, the > pattern of impact has been uneven. Some top companies remain surprisingly > strong. Early in 2009, Cisco had a cash hoard of close to $20bn; Microsoft > $19bn; Google $16bn; Intel $10bn; Dell $6bn; and Apple $26bn. This list is > top-heavy with US-based transnationals, although the only really flush > major telecoms operator, with net cash of more than $18bn early in 2009, > is China Mobile. These liquid assets give maneuverability, beyond reach > for capital based in less fortunate market segments, economic sectors and > geographic regions. Eventually, some of the money will buy struggling > competitors. > > Information and communications’ regenerative investment and profit > potentials have not been exhausted. In 2008, total US media spending > actually increased marginally (2.3 per cent) to $882.6bn, and the media is > projected to be the third-fastest growing economic sector in the next five > years. All the way through the recession, international internet traffic > continued to surge, by 55 per cent in 2008 and by a projected 74 per cent > in 2009. Network systems and applications permit corporations to prepare > socio-cultural practice (education, agricultural biotechnology etc) for > intensified exploitation, and to remake other sectors, such as medicine > and energy distribution, around a comparable profit impulse. > > Dan Schiller is professor of communication at the University of Illinois > at Urbana-Champaign, and author of How to Think About Information > , University of > Illinois Press (Chicago, 2006) > > This article appears in the December edition of the excellent monthly Le > Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at > mondediplo.com. This full text is featured > here by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features one or > two articles from LMD every month. > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and > Training (CCIRDT) > Vancouver, CANADA > http://www.communityinformatics.net > > Cape Town, SA (in conjunction with Izandla Zethu SA) > http://www.izandlazethu.co.za/ > > Now blogging at http://gurstein.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 17 08:24:34 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:24:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Dec 17 10:44:03 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:44:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Dan Schiller: The Communications Revolution In-Reply-To: <17BB304759754CB08E3E045FA0CA6FDC@userPC> References: <17BB304759754CB08E3E045FA0CA6FDC@userPC> Message-ID: <98B098E3-EF28-47E8-AC6D-12745828DFA9@telus.net> On 17-Dec-09, at 2:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm not sure about all the details but an interesting brief global > overview of the political economy of ICTs > > http://www.counterpunch.org/schiller12162009.html > > MBG > > The Communications Revolution > > It's a Wired World > > By DAN SCHILLER > > Profit-seeking investment flooded into ICTs and the idea that we > were transitioning into a benign information society was the new > common sense. ..... and, so far, the leading role has been taken > not by popular social movements but by capital. Oppositional > impulses have only occasionally become organized at a politically > meaningful level. > I think it's short-sighted to state that, "Oppositional impulses have only occasionally become organized at a politically meaningful level." For example, consider this expression of another facet of the same gem: > Because informational power has altered the materials, > rules,institutions, ideas, and symbols that are the means by which > other forms of power are exercised, a new type of system, the > informational state, has emerged. Information policy is thus key > both to understanding just how this change of state has come about > and to analyzing how the informational state exercises power > domestically and around the world. Information policy is the > proprioceptive organ of the nation-state, the means by which it > senses itself and, therefore, the medium through which all other > decision-making, public or private, takes place. ...... The study > of information policy as a coherent body of law and regulation > introduces the meso-level and lets us answer the real question: > What are we doing to ourselves? (Sandra Braman. Change of State: > Information, Policy, and Power. MIT Press, February 2007. pp. 4-5. > ) Meaningful opposition at the political level has already occurred, just not among us "voters!" GG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kamna.malik at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 14:13:47 2009 From: kamna.malik at gmail.com (Kamna Malik) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:43:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative In-Reply-To: <7DA6C47249264371B60E3D27AED77F21@userPC> References: <7DA6C47249264371B60E3D27AED77F21@userPC> Message-ID: Deirdre, I also subscribe to the ethic of sharing and open content. Perhaps it is a matter of time but ultimately, academic publishers and their contracts will also evolve with this growing phenomemon of open content. However, I also believe that sharing or protecting knowledge are two separate schools of thought. Both have their own merits/demerits, their own audience and both co-exist today. More important is that publishers/editors appraise the authors about the contractual needs, if any, well in time. Well, coming back to the CFC that raised this discussion - yes, there is an agreement required for transfer of copyright which will be shared with the potential contributors in initial stages though signing up will take place only after acceptance decision is made. In this case, the author still retains the intellectual property of the content. Hope this clarifies that the intent here is not to trap any colleague but to get the contemporary thoughts and practices across to even those readers who still pick their readings from the publisher catalogues. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > My experience with those folks was the same as Deirdre's and my responses > have been the same (disclosure: I did publish with them once when I was > young and naïve ;-0... > > But I should also point out that most for-profit academic journal > publishers > have parallel and similarly restrictive contracts (but yes, this is very > much in evolution and the specific nature of the restrictiveness varies > from > publisher to publisher at this point... > > For journals this is in some sense even more restrictive since the major > problem comes not on the author's side but for the user since most of these > publishers have very expensive subscription rates and discriminatorialy > expensive rates for access to individual articles. > > This is how I recently responded to a request to undertake an article > review > for a commercial publisher who would have charged anywhere from $25-60 for > me to read that same article once it was published... > > "Thanks for the invitation (to review) but as a matter of principle I don't > contribute free intellectual labour to non-open access, for-profit journals > and particularly when as is the case here, the underlying research was paid > for by public funds--this should, in my opinion, only be published in open > access journals." > > Best to all, > > MBG > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics > http://ci-journal.net > (an open access, open archive journal) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:02 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kamna Malik > Subject: Re: [governance] CFC: Business Organizations and Collaborative > > > Dear Friends, > > Several years ago I saw a call for papers like this one, and from the same > publisher. The topic was connected with networking and diversity and very > much in line with my own interests. I submitted a proposal for a chapter > which was accepted. I spent the next three or four months stealing time > which didn’t really exist so that I could complete the project inside the > deadline. Almost as an afterthought, on the Sunday before the final > Wednesday deadline, the editor circulated the contract for signature. The > contract required me to sign over to the publisher, absolutely, every > vestige of my copyright in the material, whether it was eventually > published > or not. In return would come “enhancement to my reputation” from my work > being included in the publication. > > I withdrew the work immediately. I had already broken the terms of the > contract since I had already shared the document for comments with other > people in the field. > > I contacted the other chapter authors but no one seemed to share my outrage > at these conditions. One man was in fact quite rude to me :-) I understand > that contracts like the one I was sent are customary – a rule rather than > an > exception. I also understand the imperatives of “publish or perish”. > However > I expect there are still people who subscribe to an ethic of sharing and > open content. To those I would like to suggest that they avoid the trap I > fell into and ask to see the contract BEFORE they embark on the project. > > Let me be absolutely clear – this is not about money, but about rights, and > specifically about the right to share. > > Deirdre > > > 2009/12/16 Kamna Malik : > > Chapter proposals are invited for the upcoming book - > > > > > > > > Business Organizations and Collaborative Web: Practices, Strategies > > and Patterns > > > > > > > > To be edited by Kamna Malik and Praveen Choudhary > > > > To be published by IGI Global Publishing. > > > > > > > > Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following: > > - Journey of the Web: History and stages of growth of the web, > > emerging Web tools and their applications > > - Individual aspects: Knowledge entrepreneurs, competitive landscape > > of individuals > > - Business aspects: Global supply chains, co-creation of knowledge, > > products and services, changing forms of organization structure and > > dynamics, extent of technology friendliness, control versus trust, > > competitive landscape of business – practices, strategies and patterns > > - Social aspects: Emergence of the virtual world, development of > > communities, freedom of voice, competitive landscape for nations > > - Information System aspects: IS organization structure, future forms > > of information infrastructure, information security, integrity and > > assurance, competitive landscape of information systems function > > - Ethical and Legal aspects: IP ownership, ethical blogging, > > information policies and practices > > > > > > > > Proposal Submission by: January 5, 2010 > > > > Proposal Decision by: January 20, 2010 > > > > Full Chapter Submission by: March 5, 2010 > > > > > > > > Complete call for chapters is available at > > > > http://www.igi-global.com/requests/details.asp?ID=728 > > > > > > > > > > > > For submissions and queries, please write to > > kamna.malik at u21global.edu.sg > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Dec 17 17:04:12 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:04:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <701af9f70912171404r441abe3gc718705470438584@mail.gmail.com> Hello Wolfgang! Hope you are doing well. I can't seem to open these links despite changing the settings. I get a funny message like: ODS - Sédoc Official Documents System of the United Nations Système de diffusion électronique des documents de l'ONU There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link, - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application. Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means. Is it possible to post us the link directly? 2009/12/17 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 sdkaaa at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 17:07:02 2009 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:07:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912171404r441abe3gc718705470438584@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f70912171404r441abe3gc718705470438584@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf80912171407x6937309bn45dba7e88a55c51a@mail.gmail.com> Same here Fouad, I guess it's an internal link or somehow the link got cropped... maybe if the link doesn't work Wolfgang could upload it for us somewhere... All the Best. Bernard. -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon Mike Ditka - "If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn't have given us arms." On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hello Wolfgang! > > Hope you are doing well. I can't seem to open these links despite > changing the settings. I get a funny message like: > > ODS - Sédoc > Official Documents System of the United Nations Système de > diffusion > électronique des documents de l'ONU > There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web > link, > - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow > cookies or > - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked > or > - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with > this application. > Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means. > > Is it possible to post us the link directly? > > > 2009/12/17 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > > < > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/596/06/PDF/N0959606.pdf?OpenElement > > > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement > > > > > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Dec 17 17:35:49 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:35:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] EPIC DEFENDS PRIVACY OF FACEBOOK USERS: FILES COMPLAINT WITH FTC References: Message-ID: <90C49F8F-7584-4FB6-944D-D235E725BA36@datos-personales.org> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, December 17, 2009, 12:00 pm EST EPIC DEFENDS PRIVACY OF FACEBOOK USERS: FILES COMPLAINT WITH FTC http://epic.org/2009/12/epic-defends-privacy-of-facebo.html Leading Privacy Organization says that Recent Changes by Facebook to User Privacy Settings are Unfair and Deceptive WASHINGTON DC – The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), joined by nine privacy and consumer organizations, today filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charging that Facebook’s recent changes to user privacy settings violate federal consumer protection law. The EPIC complaint urges the Trade Commission to open an investigation into the recent changes made by Facebook to the privacy settings of Facebook users and to require Facebook to restore privacy safeguards. “This is the most significant case now before the Federal Trade Commission,” said Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Executive Director. “More than 100 million people in the United States subscribe to the Facebook service. The company should not be allowed to turn down the privacy dial on so many American consumers.” On November 19 and December 9, Facebook changed key privacy settings and required Facebook users to go through a “transition tool” before they could obtain access to their accounts. According to the EPIC complaint, far more user information became publicly available as result of this change. EPIC also said that more personal information will become available to third party application developers as a result of the changes to the privacy settings. The EPIC complaint cites widespread opposition to the changes by Facebook users, news organizations, bloggers, and security experts. Ed Felten, a security expert and Princeton University professor, wrote, “As a user myself, I was pretty unhappy about the recently changed privacy control. I felt that Facebook was trying to trick me into loosening controls on my information.” Danny Sullivan, the editor of Search Engine Land and an expert in search engine design, wrote on his blog, “I was disturbed to discover things I previously had as options were no longer in my control.” The EPIC complaint also cites the creation of new Facebook user groups, such as “Against The New Facebook Privacy Settings!” and “Facebook! Fix the Privacy Settings.” Among the organizations supporting the EPIC complaint are the American Library Association, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, FoolProof Financial Education, Patient Privacy Rights, Privacy Activism, the Privacy Rights Now Coalition, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the U. S. Bill of Rights Foundation. The EPIC is a public interest research center based in Washington, DC. EPIC focuses public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. Previous EPIC complaints to the FTC have led to the largest judgment in the Commission’s history, substantial changes to online authentication techniques, and the recent decision of the Department of Defense to stop selling a spyware program to military families. # # # RESOURCES: EPIC’s Complaint, “In re Facebook,” filed December 17, 2009 http://www.epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf Background on EPIC Complaint, “In re Facebook” http://www.epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook EPIC, Facebook and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 20:07:15 2009 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:07:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <43c2faf80912171407x6937309bn45dba7e88a55c51a@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f70912171404r441abe3gc718705470438584@mail.gmail.com> <43c2faf80912171407x6937309bn45dba7e88a55c51a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a0912171707r6465983he4fed17bcbbf6865@mail.gmail.com> http://www.un.org/ga/ Best regards Antonio Medina 2009/12/17 Bernard Sadaka > Same here Fouad, > I guess it's an internal link or somehow the link got cropped... > maybe if the link doesn't work Wolfgang could upload it for us somewhere... > All the Best. > Bernard. > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > Mike Ditka - "If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn't have given us arms." > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Hello Wolfgang! >> >> Hope you are doing well. I can't seem to open these links despite >> changing the settings. I get a funny message like: >> >> ODS - Sédoc >> Official Documents System of the United Nations Système de >> diffusion >> électronique des documents de l'ONU >> There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web >> link, >> - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow >> cookies or >> - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been >> blocked or >> - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with >> this application. >> Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means. >> >> Is it possible to post us the link directly? >> >> >> 2009/12/17 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> : >> > < >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/596/06/PDF/N0959606.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> > >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, 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 >> Advisor & Researcher >> ICT4D & Internet Governance >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: >> 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 dmiloshevic at afilias.info Fri Dec 18 06:20:25 2009 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:20:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> W- The link no longer works! Happy and healthy 2010! Desiree -- On 17 Dec 2009, at 13:24, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 18 06:47:20 2009 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:47:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> Message-ID: <243478.91778.qm@web113516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>         BEST WISHES FOR MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, YOUR NEART AND DEAR ONES, MR. I.D. RAJBHANDARY JI! To: Ms Desiree MiloshevicFrom: Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,                                                         M.Sc.,  M.Ed.,  D.F.P.Tech.,  M.I.S.T.E. Consultant Life– Member, Mysore Chamber of Commerce & Industries; Member, Lions Club,  Mysore. Visiting Professor, JSS University, Mysore. Advisor to Bio-Industries, Laboratories, Educational and  other sectors for Accredited Mgt. Systems of Quality, Environment, Safety, Innovations & so on, Centre of Excellence &Continuous Improvement; Ex - Visiting Professor in Environmental Science (UGC); Ex - AICTE Emeritus Fellow in Biotech / Env Engg,- SJCE,  Mysore; Ex-HOD & Senior Professor in Biotechnology, KU, Nepal; Ex –Manager, Karnataka Fisheries, Mangalore; Retd.  Sr Scientist, CFTRI,  Mysore; F.A.O Certified Trainer of Safety (HACCP) Management Systems, GMPs & SSOPs  in Food Industries; Ex-National Panel Member for Evaluation of  ICAR Institution, Recruitment Boards, etc. Res:  221, “Nireshwalias”, CFTRI Layout, H T Road, Bogadi 2nd Stage (South), Mysore – 570026,Karnataka State, INDIA. 91 821-2342612;    91 94493 23325; nkeshav42 at yahoo.com   Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Tel: 91-821-2342612; Mob: 094818 14418. Visiting Professor, JSS University, Mysore; Life Member, MCC & Industries/APFS/AMI/NSI/AFST(I)/ISTD,etc. --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: From: Desiree Miloshevic Subject: Re: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter at npogroups.org, "_Wolfgang=22?=" Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 4:50 PM W- The link no longer works! Happy and healthy 2010! Desiree -- On 17 Dec 2009, at 13:24, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 18 06:59:25 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:59:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 18 07:17:20 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:17:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 18 08:36:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:36:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI Message-ID: <662134.70996.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Very cool stuff.  The focus seems well placed. --- On Fri, 12/18/09, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 12:17 PM http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ocl at gih.com Fri Dec 18 08:48:32 2009 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:32 -0000 Subject: [governance] IGF follow-up: The mobile Internet in developing economies - child safety dimensions Message-ID: <8C44DDECC31F424E8D0D36A494DE0BD0@GIH.CO.UK> Folks: please find enclosed, the IGF Sharm el Sheikh report, as filed by John Carr, one of the sessions's organisers, of: Workshop 106: The mobile Internet in developing economies - child safety dimensions Original Title: "Children in the Age of Mobile Access: The promises of Internet coexamined with the increasing challenges to Child Safety" Although attendance at the workshop was low, it was considered a success, and I hope that lessons learnt from the discussions will be taken into account by the IGF secretariat in preparing future workshops treating similar issues. Warmest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The_mobile_Internet_in_developing_economies_.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 90597 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sdkaaa at gmail.com Fri Dec 18 11:34:39 2009 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:34:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <43c2faf80912171407x6937309bn45dba7e88a55c51a@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f70912171404r441abe3gc718705470438584@mail.gmail.com> <43c2faf80912171407x6937309bn45dba7e88a55c51a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf80912180834y4a5b251bn5a520a3c7e509b15@mail.gmail.com> Hello all, I would like to remind you all that today the 18th of December is the last day to submit reports for workshops, in case some you have forgotten... As you may all know workshops reports are not sent by emails, but submitted in an online form... A quick reminder from the secretariat website: - Organizers of workshops and other events are kindly requested to file their reports by *18 December*. Submission of a report is a pre-condition for being granted a slot at the 2010 meeting. - Please use the Web based formfor this purpose or locate your workshop in the list . All the Best. Bernard. -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon Charles de Gaulle - "The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs." On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Same here Fouad, > I guess it's an internal link or somehow the link got cropped... > maybe if the link doesn't work Wolfgang could upload it for us somewhere... > All the Best. > Bernard. > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > Mike Ditka - "If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn't have given us arms." > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Hello Wolfgang! >> >> Hope you are doing well. I can't seem to open these links despite >> changing the settings. I get a funny message like: >> >> ODS - Sédoc >> Official Documents System of the United Nations Système de >> diffusion >> électronique des documents de l'ONU >> There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web >> link, >> - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow >> cookies or >> - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been >> blocked or >> - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with >> this application. >> Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means. >> >> Is it possible to post us the link directly? >> >> >> 2009/12/17 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> : >> > < >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/596/06/PDF/N0959606.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/635/04/PDF/N0963504.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> > >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N09/616/43/PDF/N0961643.pdf?OpenElement >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, 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 >> Advisor & Researcher >> ICT4D & Internet Governance >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: >> 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Dec 19 04:23:04 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:23:04 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang. Some great stuff here, even a resolution on the NIEO! Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, presumably... Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and China, was withdrawn. Inter alia, it 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the regular budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate; However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, was adopted on 9 December. Inter alia it 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than regular budget. In addition, the doc 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet; I'm not sure what to make of this one. When the EC report was originally submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence no formal consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language. So are we to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn? Anyone know what the deal is here? Bertrand? Thanks, Bill PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within ITU): The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure greater and more active participation of Governments in the formulation of international public policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken could ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in the policy formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance framework could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government participation, rather than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in the management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental organization such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, stability and reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies governing the harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body with the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such services so that concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all relevant stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such as intergovernmental council meetings. A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned ccTLD in accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved framework and mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if required, at the request of the country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two entities could be resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with the necessary mandate. On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml > > Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. > > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 19 09:03:44 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:03:44 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871997A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here are three other interesting paragrpahs (in the preamble) which also show the differences between the two drafts and point into an interesting positive (for the IGF future) direction. The new insert which says, summerizing the Sharm el Sheikh debate "which generally welcomed the renewal of iuts manadte and recognozed the need for further discussion in improvement of its worling methods" opens the door for a new thread beyond 2010. Wolfgang . Version December 4: Recognizing the importance of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum as a multi-stakeholder forum for dialogue in which various matters are discussed, including, inter alia, public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance with a view to fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet, and reiterating that all Governments, on an equal footing, should fulfil their roles and responsibilities, which encompass international Internet governance and ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet, but not the day-to-day technical and operational matters, which do not impact on international public policy issues, Taking note of the discussions at the fourth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum held in Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt, from 15 to 18 November 2009 on the future of the Forum, which generally welcomed the renewal of its mandate and recognized the need for further discussion on improvement of its working methods, Recalling the first, second, third and fourth meetings of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Athens in October and November 2006, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in November 2007, in Hyderabad, India, in December 2008, and in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009, respectively, and welcoming theconvening of the fifth meeting of the Forum, to be held in Vilnius in 2010, Version November 5: Recognizing the importance of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum in the discussion of public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet, Recalling paragraphs 69 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society on 18 November 2005,4 on the process of enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, Recalling also the first to fourth meetings of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 12 to 15 November 2007, in Hyderabad, India, from 3 to 6 December 2008, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, from 15 to 18 November 2009, respectively, and welcoming the convening of the fifth meeting of the Forum in Vilnius in 2010, Best wishes and happy holidays wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: Sa 19.12.2009 10:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter at mail.uni-halle.de; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: de la Chapelle, Bertrand Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI Hi Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang. Some great stuff here, even a resolution on the NIEO! Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, presumably... Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and China, was withdrawn. Inter alia, it 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the regular budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate; However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, was adopted on 9 December. Inter alia it 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than regular budget. In addition, the doc 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet; I'm not sure what to make of this one. When the EC report was originally submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence no formal consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language. So are we to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn? Anyone know what the deal is here? Bertrand? Thanks, Bill PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within ITU): The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure greater and more active participation of Governments in the formulation of international public policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken could ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in the policy formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance framework could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government participation, rather than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in the management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental organization such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, stability and reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies governing the harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body with the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such services so that concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all relevant stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such as intergovernmental council meetings. A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned ccTLD in accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved framework and mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if required, at the request of the country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two entities could be resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with the necessary mandate. On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml > > Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. > > 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 *********************************************************** 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 19 10:19:28 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:19:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet Responsibility Message-ID: <994093.29447.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> While doing some naturalpathic research into some "wives tales" regarding pregnancy and the direct scientific evidence supporting same -- I came across these two medical research papers. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7602627536807g0/  and   'A Critical Evaluation of Internet Marketing of Products That Contain Ephedra" (just copy and  paste into search engine- copyRights and all)   No need to read the entire articles -- they are well educated people blaming access to information for individual stupidity.   My point is clear and unambiguous.  There are two equally formidible foes to Access to information.  One is industrial and the other "professional". The industrial side wants to contain the information so as to be able to sell it.  The professional wants to contain the information to sell themselves and their own self worth. Put bluntly, Lawyers and Doctors want to keep you ignorant so that their self esteem and pocket books can get larger or at least stay larger.  Medicine and law are not areas reserved for licenses that are generally restraint of trade and reservations or knowledge.   Clearly the above two cited instances are held out by the professions as a need for themselves citing the access as the culprit, and our need to have them restrict that access for us because they are the only ones wise enough to make decisions for us.  But it takes no braintrust of knowledge to see that the two instances were exactly the opposite. It was the professions and pharmas that kept the full information from the public thereby creating a vacuume of full knowledge by the users. They kept it to themselves so they could sell it to 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 19 12:16:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:16:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: 883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch Message-ID: Bill this paragraph renders the IGF Toothless: (P.S. Reference below) The first section of the paragraph suggest an "enhancement" of Governmental Participation, when in fact an open doors to Governmental Participation has been open to Governments since the start of WSIS. [Bertrand can verify that]. It also specifies that Governments have the legitimate power in: "the formulation of international public policy for information and communications technologies." The second paragraph reduces the Legitimate Players and the venue motus to be used: " there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the experience and also the necessary mandate. " The final paragraph Kills and renders the IGF Toothless: "caution must be exercised when suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues." The forth paragraph coronates the ITU as the designate body of authority, abolishing-any and all-previous Mandates: "International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU." -- Basically the "United Nations umbrella" as its written here, will hyjack the IGF and use it as a guise to make: "decision-making role(s) or provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues". Seems that the IGF is changing, and I find the changes in mind to be, less 'transparent' to the Common World and even more so to the Developing World. The UN has its own systemic problems, (The UN Model itself is imbalanced). I feel that to grab the IGF in such a manner suggested, only creates a continuation of these systemic problems. Sometimes some thing Old (The UN System / ITU) has to die, in order for new things to grow (That beyond the IGF). The notion of: "rather than attempting to create new ones." suggest to me that there are Members of the UN that are not ready and willing to move forward with the birth of new models. Thats a sad reality, given the Human price it extracts. To Many 'Career Politicians' under the Umbrella (ITU in particular), perhaps they should step out into the rain of the real world. --- P.S. Re.: > > The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure greater and more active participation of Governments in the formulation of international public policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken could ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in the policy formulation process. It should be noted that there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance framework could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government participation, rather than attempting to create new ones. there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the experience and also the necessary mandate. Also, caution must be exercised when suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in the management of critical Internet resources.... An intergovernmental organization such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 19 12:26:18 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:56:18 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B2D0CBA.20209@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang. Some great stuff here, even a resolution on the NIEO! Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, presumably... > > Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and China, was withdrawn. Inter alia, it > > 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the regular budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate; > > However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, was adopted on 9 December. Inter alia it > > 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; > > So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than regular budget. That in my view is formalization of a rather objectionable practice of private funding for public policy related bodies. Why, when we do not accept (rather, frown upon deeply) such practices in our national political/ governance systems, should we accept/encourage them at the global levels? A clear indicator of rabid neoliberalization of global society, and its more or less tame acceptance by most. Incidentally, IGC has made statements seeking stable public funding for the IGF, so we must be officially disappointed by this development. I do not know whether any other UN resolution has ever included similar statements, though there might well be some in the spirit of 'global compact' . But programmatic stuff of fighting poverty and voluntary compliance to some codes etc is different, and it is relatively less objectionable to seek private funding for it. IGF, on the other hand, is a global public policy space. It is perhaps a new chapter of global governance that we now officially seek private funds for public policy systems and structures. Somehow it now seems that 'voluntary' funding is a good term and public funding a bad term. (We remember here how last year some such 'voluntary' funding was openly sought to be leveraged for influencing IGF agenda!) parminder > In addition, the doc > > 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet; > > I'm not sure what to make of this one. When the EC report was originally submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence no formal consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language. So are we to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn? Anyone know what the deal is here? Bertrand? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within ITU): > > The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure greater and > more active participation of Governments in the formulation of international public > policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken could > ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in the policy > formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the > United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the > experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance framework > could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government participation, rather > than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when > suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or > provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. > > An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries > would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in the > management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental organization such as the International Telecommunication > Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the > creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. > > The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, stability and > reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies governing the > harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code top-level > domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body with > the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such services so that > concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. > This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all relevant > stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such as > intergovernmental council meetings. > > A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned ccTLD in > accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society > which states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another > country’s ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by > each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be > respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved framework and > mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if required, at the request of the > country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two entities could be > resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with the necessary > mandate. > > On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > >> http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml >> >> Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. >> >> 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 >> > > *********************************************************** > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 19 16:53:22 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:53:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <4B2D0CBA.20209@itforchange.net> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B2D0CBA.20209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <85EE8D0C-2DC8-4049-AA08-23CA0779BC8F@psg.com> On 19 Dec 2009, at 18:26, Parminder wrote: > (We remember here how last year some such 'voluntary' funding was openly sought to be leveraged for influencing IGF agenda!) Actually i don't remember that. i remember unsubstantiated accusations of that. 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 17:26:54 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:56:54 -0430 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator Message-ID: <4B2D532E.3080901@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 Sat Dec 19 17:53:43 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:23:43 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Message-ID: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: igc-dec-2009-ccordinator-results.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 232205 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sdkaaa at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 18:07:43 2009 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:07:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf80912191507i2d279896m4004692489755bce@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Congrats for the elections; I just figured out that i didn't vote... oups... Anyway, congrats again for Jeremy. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for all. All the Best. Bernard -- Bernard SADAKA Orkila International Offshore Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris SNA building, 10th floor P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon Tel : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52 Fax : +961 1 218858 Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon Ted Turner - "Sports is like a war without the killing." On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number > of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. > However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer > used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these > would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not > the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 19 18:09:42 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:09:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: There are a few good things about this election. Firstly, a quality field of candidates. That indicates good interest in participation. Let¹s also note that 138 people affirmed membership and voted. The previous highest number of voters in any election was 100. So it is good to see that the level of participation is growing. That bodes well for the future. And congratulations to Jeremy! As the outgoing co ordinator I will be very happy to assist and support if need be, but I am confident that Ginger and Jeremy will do a great job and IGC can look forward to further growth in the coming year under their leadership. I wish the new team well. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Reply-To: , Ginger Paque Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:23:43 -0430 To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , Derrick Cogburn , Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Hi everyone, As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 Jeremy Malcolm 45 Tim McGinnis 36 Fouad Bajwa 34 Rafik Dammak 11 None of the Above 5 Total Votes Cast 131 Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, Ginger Paque IGC Co-coordinator in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: Re: Co-coordinator Election Results [please review before and Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University 212 McCabe Washington, DC 20016-8071 +1.202.885.2400 http://www.american.edu/sis/ic Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 18:11:18 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:11:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Everyone, I want to congratulate Jeremy for being elected as co-coordinator and also thanks Ian for the work done. The election showed the dynamics within IGC and how its democratic process works. Thanks to the rest of candidates. Rafik 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number > of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. > However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer > used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these > would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not > the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 19 18:25:50 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:25:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Jeremy and well done everyone else who accepted nomination. Thank you to Ian for a good job well done And best wishes to everyone for the end of this year and the beginning of next Deirdre 2009/12/19 Ginger Paque : > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of > cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, > there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by > several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would > only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the > final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm     45 > Tim McGinnis         36 > Fouad Bajwa          34 > Rafik Dammak        11 > None of the Above    5 > > Total Votes Cast    131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- “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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 19 18:34:21 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:34:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: 4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com Message-ID: Jeremy Malcolm My congratulation on your election to the IGC Co-Coordinator Post. My condolences to the other Candidates, I'd like to emphasize why I felt that Tim McGinnis is the best Candidate for the position; He is in Africa and most likely in position to attend Icann Nairobi in 2010. ICANN No.#37 | 7-12 March 2010 http://nbo.icann.org/ His work with AfriNIC, AfrICANN , AfrISPA, endows him with a competence of the African situation. In addition, Tim's daily professional association with IT and Oil Companies, not only supports his knowledge of the African infrastructure, but will enable him too provide experianced information & valuable insight when the same Oil Companies begin infrastructure improvements in Pakistan's Swat Valley* pipeline(s), when the time comes. His ability to communicate in a multilingual environment, demonstrates his adaptability and clarity in interpretation of ground situations, and effectively advocate terms in IT Geo-Poltical situations. He has demonstrates a strong commitment to the Information Society and will be our strongest Delegate for the IGC at IGF2010 Vilnjus Lithuania. MY hope is that Mr. McGinnis' viability & strong conviction will be an inspiration to your administrative endeavors Mr. Malcolm. There's a lot of work ahead. Look Out For | Tim McGinnis 2011 - * Iran-Pakistan-India ( IPI / ”Peace Pipeline”) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipelines http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/iran-pakistan-india-pipeline/ --- -30-____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 20:15:37 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:15:37 +0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912191715q668f052cp2dc80c4a0ecafba6@mail.gmail.com> Congratulations to Jeremy and hats off to the outgoing co-coordinator Ian! This was indeed a wonderful first experience going through the election process. The election of Jeremy is indeed a wonderful and timely selection. Once again my complete support to you and Ginger and I know you both will make a wonderful IGC coordination team together. It is also wonderful to see our confirmed 138 members and this shows that we are growing quickly! Now as Jeremy takes on this role and with Ginger's wonderful contributions during her first year, we have an immediate need to strengthen our stakeholder group and its participation in the IGF with an increased presence of developing regions. I feel we also have an increased interest together to establish IGF as an organization on the ground and increased presence on the Internet and we have all had wonderful discussions on this and this is the perfect duo to take these issues and opportunities forward. We have a Open Consultation and MAG Meetings coming up during the second week of February 2010 and we need to prepare our statements for both as well as the planning of the IGF2010 in Lithuania. I know that either Ginger or Jeremy will be there for the Open Consultations but there is an increased need for strengthening our statements and deliberations in the MAG meetings since this is where the program planning of the IGF is done within a multistakeholder face-to-face engagements for two days. Though the Civil Society members of IGF are present throughout these MAG meetings, there is an increased need to take forward a combined agenda or at least have IGC in direct interaction during the MAG meetings with its nominated and elected MAG Members like myself so that IGC interventions from the Open Consultations can be strengthened in the MAG meetings. I hope that you Ginger and Jeremy also take on these important coordination respectively as agenda items for IGC and IGF2010! Once again congratulations to both Jeremy and the members of the IGC for a wonderful and successful election and election participation! A very Happy New Year and Merry Christmas to all of our members and their families and colleagues!!! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of > cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, > there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by > several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would > only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the > final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm     45 > Tim McGinnis         36 > Fouad Bajwa          34 > Rafik Dammak        11 > None of the Above    5 > > Total Votes Cast    131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 19 20:18:09 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:18:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator In-Reply-To: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> References: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912191718k69074458o135829eafe1195b7@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Ian! On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for Ian Peter as IGC > co-coordinator. His support, advice, knowledge and wisdom have helped the > IGC through a difficult year, and aided me immensely as "junior" > co-coordinator. > > Thanks Ian... ¡Muchas Gracias! > > Happy Holidays to all, > 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 > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 email at hakik.org Sat Dec 19 21:04:55 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091220020534.A9CE7910E6@npogroups.org> Congratulations to Jeremy. Thanks also to Ian and for his outstanding co-coordinatorship, if I may say! A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Best regards, Hakik At 22:53 19-12-2009, Ginger Paque wrote: >Hi everyone, >As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy >to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the >co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > >The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. >For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a >small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than >once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that >(i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if >there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote >numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. > >Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the >process: 138 members. >Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > >Jeremy Malcolm 45 >Tim McGinnis 36 >Fouad Bajwa 34 >Rafik Dammak 11 >None of the Above 5 > >Total Votes Cast 131 > >Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I >appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. > >I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a >productive year! > >Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex >task at a very busy time of year. > >Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, >Ginger Paque >IGC Co-coordinator > >in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > >and > >Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >Associate Professor of International Relations >International Communication Program >School of International Service >American University >212 McCabe >Washington, DC 20016-8071 >+1.202.885.2400 >http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > >Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and >Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) >http://cotelco.net/ > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 19 21:12:33 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:12:33 +0500 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70912191812y37abb41dwe17cb5a56ef00692@mail.gmail.com> Bill, if you have access to this particular document, is it possible for you to take a copy and email it to me please. thanks in advance. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang.  Some great stuff here, even a resolution on the NIEO!   Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, presumably... > > Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and China, was withdrawn.  Inter alia, it > > 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the regular budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate; > > However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, was adopted on 9 December.  Inter alia it > > 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; > > So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than regular budget.  In addition, the doc > > 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet; > > I'm not sure what to make of this one.  When the EC report was originally submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence no formal consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language.  So are we to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn?  Anyone know what the deal is here?  Bertrand? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within ITU): > > The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure greater and > more active participation of Governments in the formulation of international public > policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken could > ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in the policy > formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist intergovernmental bodies under the > United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, the > experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance framework > could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government participation, rather > than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when > suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a decision-making role or > provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. > > An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries > would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in the > management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental organization such as the International Telecommunication > Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role in the > creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. > > The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, stability and > reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies governing the > harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code top-level > domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body with > the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such services so that > concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. > This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all relevant > stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such as > intergovernmental council meetings. > > A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned ccTLD in > accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society > which states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another > country’s ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by > each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be > respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved framework and > mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if required, at the request of the > country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two entities could be > resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with the necessary > mandate. > > On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml >> >> Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and related IG issues. >> >> 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 > > *********************************************************** > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 Sat Dec 19 22:56:52 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:56:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CoCo Elect RES & UN GA Message-ID: <960099.4156.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Really cool and bitchin. Wonderful numbers and great support for candidates worldwide.  Congrats, not to admins, but to participants to help us show good governance in action. Good dissent,decsent & assent and ascent. Hard and brutal participation and even some passion and compassion.   Role of IGF, IGC and the co-coordinators is the same.  Lead by example, not by vested authority. Have authority in logic and persuasion not in an edict and a crown. Be a society ruled by laws and not persons.   These "advisory" roles and the synthesis and coordination of peoples and Ideas is just awesome.  No need to worry about funding or re-election, we and they can be true to good work and not politics. I am proud to participate. Proud to tell others of the good work being done here. Proud to be allowed to be on the same list as you greats.  Proud that we care about people without a voice. Proud that we care about right and wrong.   Ian the best compliment that anyone can give someone in your role is this: You worked hard to make sure things could happen. You did not make them happen but you provided a space where they did happen. Well done. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Sat Dec 19 23:58:54 2009 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:58:54 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912191812y37abb41dwe17cb5a56ef00692@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70912191812y37abb41dwe17cb5a56ef00692@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <28cfc1a40912192058j3b2f6c88wf88918b2d7750e78@mail.gmail.com> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan035383.pdf --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Bill, if you have access to this particular document, is it possible > for you to take a copy and email it to me please. > > thanks in advance. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > > > Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang. Some great stuff here, even a > resolution on the NIEO! Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, > presumably... > > > > Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and > China, was withdrawn. Inter alia, it > > > > 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the regular > budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core > activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance > Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with > its mandate; > > > > However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the > Committee, was adopted on 9 December. Inter alia it > > > > 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant > stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet > Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in > accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where > possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; > > > > So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than > regular budget. In addition, the doc > > > > 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of the > Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining > to the Internet; > > > > I'm not sure what to make of this one. When the EC report was originally > submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence no formal > consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language. So are we > to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn? Anyone know what the > deal is here? Bertrand? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's > recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within > ITU): > > > > The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure > greater and > > more active participation of Governments in the formulation of > international public > > policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken > could > > ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in > the policy > > formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist > intergovernmental bodies under the > > United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, > the > > experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance > framework > > could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government > participation, rather > > than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when > > suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a > decision-making role or > > provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. > > > > An improved governance framework could be formed within which all > countries > > would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in > the > > management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental > organization such as the International Telecommunication > > Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading role > in the > > creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU > > Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. > > > > The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, > stability and > > reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies > governing the > > harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code > top-level > > domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body > with > > the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such > services so that > > concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. > > This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all > relevant > > stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such > as > > intergovernmental council meetings. > > > > A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned > ccTLD in > > accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information > Society > > which states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding > another > > country’s ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and > defined by > > each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, > need to be > > respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved framework > and > > mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if required, > at the request of the > > country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two entities > could be > > resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with the > necessary > > mandate. > > > > On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > >> http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml > >> > >> Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go to > the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and > related IG issues. > >> > >> 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 01:18:14 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:18:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I want to congratulate Jeremy for being elected as co-coordinator and also > thanks Ian for the work done. The election showed the dynamics within IGC > and how its democratic process works. > Thanks to the rest of candidates. > +1 Happy Holidays to all! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Dec 20 01:50:13 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:20:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B2DC925.4070704@itforchange.net> Congrats to Jeremy for being elected co-coordinator Much thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq for standing for election and strengthening our democratic processes! Happy Hols to all. regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* Are you using pirated proprietary software? Move to Free and Open Source Software instead :-) . For FOSS options, please visit http://public-software.in/taxonomy/term/38/all Ian Peter wrote: > There are a few good things about this election. Firstly, a quality > field of candidates. That indicates good interest in participation. > > Let’s also note that 138 people affirmed membership and voted. The > previous highest number of voters in any election was 100. So it is > good to see that the level of participation is growing. That bodes > well for the future. > > And congratulations to Jeremy! As the outgoing co ordinator I will be > very happy to assist and support if need be, but I am confident that > Ginger and Jeremy will do a great job and IGC can look forward to > further growth in the coming year under their leadership. I wish the > new team well. > > > Ian Peter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Ginger Paque > *Reply-To: *, Ginger Paque > *Date: *Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:23:43 -0430 > *To: *"'governance at lists.cpsr.org' <%27governance at lists.cpsr.org%27>" > , Derrick Cogburn , > Ian Peter > *Subject: *[governance] Co-coordinator Election Results > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy > to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For > the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small > number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in > voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the > same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are > irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for > individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: > 138 members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I > appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a > productive year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task > at a very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > Re: Co-coordinator Election Results [please review before and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vivekmisra99 at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 02:19:03 2009 From: vivekmisra99 at gmail.com (vivek misra) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:49:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results * In-Reply-To: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> References: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> Hello Everyone, I am Vivek Misra from India. I want to congratulate Jeremy for being elected as co-coordinator and also thanks Ian for the work done. Thanks to the rest of candidates. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Best regards, Vivek Misra SLCUP, Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited C-21, Sector B, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 Uttar Pradesh , India Mob..+91 9794171000 Ph.+91 522 4080051 On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Junk Score: 3 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) > | Approve sender | Block > sender | Block > domain > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number > of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. > However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer > used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these > would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not > the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Dec 20 03:40:52 2009 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:40:52 +0600 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results References: <4B2DC925.4070704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00bd01ca8150$27f588d0$1300a8c0@ceo> Dear Madam/Sir, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC). Very heartiest congratulations to all of you for your new position and special Congrats to Jeremy for being elected co-coordinator. With solidarity, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Guru गुरु To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Congrats to Jeremy for being elected co-coordinator Much thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq for standing for election and strengthening our democratic processes! Happy Hols to all. regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* Are you using pirated proprietary software? Move to Free and Open Source Software instead :-) . For FOSS options, please visit http://public-software.in/taxonomy/term/38/all Ian Peter wrote: There are a few good things about this election. Firstly, a quality field of candidates. That indicates good interest in participation. Let’s also note that 138 people affirmed membership and voted. The previous highest number of voters in any election was 100. So it is good to see that the level of participation is growing. That bodes well for the future. And congratulations to Jeremy! As the outgoing co ordinator I will be very happy to assist and support if need be, but I am confident that Ginger and Jeremy will do a great job and IGC can look forward to further growth in the coming year under their leadership. I wish the new team well. Ian Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ginger Paque Reply-To: , Ginger Paque Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:23:43 -0430 To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , Derrick Cogburn , Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Hi everyone, As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 Jeremy Malcolm 45 Tim McGinnis 36 Fouad Bajwa 34 Rafik Dammak 11 None of the Above 5 Total Votes Cast 131 Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, Ginger Paque IGC Co-coordinator in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: Re: Co-coordinator Election Results [please review before and Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University 212 McCabe Washington, DC 20016-8071 +1.202.885.2400 http://www.american.edu/sis/ic Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Dec 20 05:22:10 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:22:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871998B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Congratulations to Jeremy, good luck, courage, patience and a "thick skin". Interesting time to move forward. Thanks also to the other candidates and people who voted. This gives the IGF a good level of credibility and accountability. And thanks for Ian for his outstanding work to steer the process to this next gate. Happy holidays to everybody. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Gesendet: Sa 19.12.2009 23:53 An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Derrick Cogburn; Ian Peter Betreff: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Hi everyone, As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 Jeremy Malcolm 45 Tim McGinnis 36 Fouad Bajwa 34 Rafik Dammak 11 None of the Above 5 Total Votes Cast 131 Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, Ginger Paque IGC Co-coordinator in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: and Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University 212 McCabe Washington, DC 20016-8071 +1.202.885.2400 http://www.american.edu/sis/ic Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 06:00:43 2009 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:00:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results * In-Reply-To: <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> References: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a0912200300r4ea626cdxe90c19191d95df5d@mail.gmail.com> Hello Everyone, I am Antonio Medina from Colombia. I want to congratulate new co-coordinator. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Best regards, Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet Coordinador Internet Governance Forum Colombia IGF Colombia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sdkaaa at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 07:51:01 2009 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:51:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2009 Workshop Report Submission Message-ID: <43c2faf80912200451j7b90807eid5ffb76a362f1d0c@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, I am glad to inform every one that the IGF Secretariat have just extended the deadline to submit a workshop report for IGF Sharm until 18th January 2010. That's a decent date for the organizers that haven't yet submitted reports. All the Best. Bernard. -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon Ted Turner - "Sports is like a war without the killing." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Dec 20 07:51:55 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:51:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 2010 Domain Pulse Conference in Switzerland Announced Message-ID: <740473.88020.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi all, A conference announcement that will probably interest a few... Cheers David 2010 Domain Pulse Conference in Switzerland Announced Domain Pulse, the most significant event in the German-speaking world for current topics and trends associated with all aspects of domain names will be held in the Swiss city of Lucerne on 1 and 2 February 2010. The conference in 2010 will be hosted by SWITCH, the registry for .CH (Switzerland) and .LI (Liechtenstein) domain names and organised in cooperation with the .DE (Germany) and .AT (Austrian) registries. The conference will be held at the renowned Culture and Congress Centre KKL. Domain Pulse aims to give people interested in domain names knowledge on the industry, offering expert groups the opportunity to engage in a direct and active dialogue. Further information about the programme and registration can be found on the Domain Pulse website (in German). Speakers for Domain Pulse 2010 include experts from Germany, Austria and Switzerland as well as Kim Davies from ICANN and Professor Rolf Weber from the University of Zürich and Guest Professor at Hong Kong University. Conference presentations are in English and German with translators on hand to translate into the language not being presented in. For more information including the programme, registration and an archive of previous conferences including presentations, see www.domainpulse.ch. From: http://goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=9793 --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery __________________________________________________________________________________ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 08:35:01 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:05:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871998B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871998B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Warm Wishes to Ian Peter who has served with total commitment as Coordinator for the last two years. And Congratulations to Jeremy. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz 2009/12/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Congratulations to Jeremy, good luck, courage, patience and a "thick skin". > Interesting time to move forward. Thanks also to the other candidates and > people who voted. This gives the IGF a good level of credibility and > accountability. And thanks for Ian for his outstanding work to steer the > process to this next gate. > > Happy holidays to everybody. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Sa 19.12.2009 23:53 > An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Derrick Cogburn; Ian Peter > Betreff: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results > > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of > cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, > there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by > several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would > only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the > final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cls at rkey.com Sun Dec 20 09:34:21 2009 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:34:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2E35ED.8060605@rkey.com> Hello all, Congratulations to Jeremy, who has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to serving the Internet community, and who has pursued that commitment with admirable dedication. As we proceed with efforts to engage wider and more effective participation in this forum, we should note that Jeremy's plurality was less than 35% of the votes cast, and the next 2 candidates had over 53% between them. Jeremy's election was certainly legitimate under current rules and processes, but I hope that folks here will seriously consider moving toward more advanced consensus-oriented systems that can remake the IGC into an exemplar of scalability and fairness in online discourse and decision-making. Craig Simon Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For > the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small > number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in > voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the > same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are > irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for > individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: > 138 members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I > appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a > productive year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task > at a very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 09:57:23 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:57:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] * Chinese plan to meter net traffic * In-Reply-To: <249246.45301.qm@web56307.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <249246.45301.qm@web56307.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70912200657h1551ad5qcd3944d72eac0595@mail.gmail.com> I believe that this is an important Internet Authoritarian news piece that all have to be aware of: * Chinese plan to meter net traffic * FYI: --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dessalegn Mequanint Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:45 PM Subject: [igcbp-talk] Fw: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] * Chinese plan to meter net traffic * To: igcbp-talk Dessalegn Mequanint, Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Informatics, Department of Computer Science, e-mail: dessalegn at cs.aau.edu.et, dessalegn_m at yahoo.com, Tel: +251 11 122 29 22 (Off.) ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: George Lessard Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 4:04:15 PM Subject: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] * Chinese plan to meter net traffic * * Chinese plan to meter net traffic * China is seeking international agreement to let it meter net traffic that passes through its borders. Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8417680.stm But an EU cyber security expert has warned the plan could threaten the stability of the entire internet. Andrea Servida, of the European Commission, told a House of Lords committee that China could have a "hidden agenda" in wanting to monitor data flows. And, in later comments to BBC News, he suggested technical changes needed to charge everyone for internet traffic flowing through China could undermine the web's founding principle of openness as well as raising security and stability concerns for all net users. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 -------------- About the CRACIN Discussion Mailing List cracin-canada @ vancouvercommunity.net Purpose: news + discussion related directly to CRACIN research Members: Core Research Team + graduate students + others who are (becoming) directly involved with CRACIN research activities (e.g. other government partners, private sector partners, and those invited based on their expression of interest). It is the main ongoing forum for CRACIN research discussion. List info and admin: http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists CRACIN home page: http://www.cracin.ca From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 10:54:48 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:54:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results * In-Reply-To: <2bd2431a0912200300r4ea626cdxe90c19191d95df5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> <2bd2431a0912200300r4ea626cdxe90c19191d95df5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Jeremy A great delight to see were the cap. it fits you well as examplified by your work. However , when Derrick alleges that people uses one machine to vote, that sounds like a conundrum. Were the people in a conference and only one machine was available for Internet access. What is Derrick effectvely alluding to? Merry Xmas and Happy Naw year to all Aaron 2009/12/20 Antonio Medina Gómez > Hello Everyone, I am Antonio Medina from Colombia. I want to congratulate > new co-coordinator. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Best > regards, > > Antonio Medina Gomez > Presidente > Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet > Coordinador Internet Governance Forum Colombia > IGF Colombia > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sun Dec 20 11:13:43 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:13:43 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] UN General Assembly 2009 FYI In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40912192058j3b2f6c88wf88918b2d7750e78@mail.gmail.com> References: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802@marzouki.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871994B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4848F42F-A249-4FB9-B379-F9594F2DE841@afilias.info> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719971@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719974@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <883478B7-7150-47A0-9B14-22E66359CB2B@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70912191812y37abb41dwe17cb5a56ef00692@mail.gmail.com> <28cfc1a40912192058j3b2f6c88wf88918b2d7750e78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40912200813y611ae273m7618eaa6b158bd2b@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to Brendan for the link. The continued positioning of the ITU as the lead UN Agency for Internet Governance matters should not surprise us at all. The Secty-General has intimated as much for several years, memorably at the ICANN meeting in Egypt. Carlton Samuels ========================================================================================== On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan035383.pdf > > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Bill, if you have access to this particular document, is it possible >> for you to take a copy and email it to me please. >> >> thanks in advance. >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Thanks for the useful pointer, Wolfgang. Some great stuff here, even a >> resolution on the NIEO! Then it was off to the Palm for a nice lunch, >> presumably... >> > >> > Anyway, I notice that A/C.2/64/L.62 of 5 November, from the G77 and >> China, was withdrawn. Inter alia, it >> > >> > 14. Requests the Secretary-General to consider providing from the >> regular budget the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the >> core activities and operations of the secretariat of the Internet Governance >> Forum, in order to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with >> its mandate; >> > >> > However, A/C.2/64/L.62 of 4 December, from the Vice-Chairperson of the >> Committee, was adopted on 9 December. Inter alia it >> > >> > 17. Encourages Member States, the private sector and all other relevant >> stakeholders to consider strengthening the secretariat of the Internet >> Governance Forum in order to support its activities and operations, in >> accordance with its mandate, including by providing additional funds, where >> possible, to the Trust Fund in support of the secretariat; >> > >> > So I guess the concept remains voluntary contributions rather than >> regular budget. In addition, the doc >> > >> > 15. Invites the Economic and Social Council to consider the report of >> the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet; >> > >> > I'm not sure what to make of this one. When the EC report was >> originally submitted during last year's CSTD there were objections and hence >> no formal consideration due in particular to the ITU uber alles language. >> So are we to conclude that such objections have been withdrawn? Anyone >> know what the deal is here? Bertrand? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > PS: For those who've not read the SG report, here's some of the ITU's >> recommendations (which pale in comparison to what's been proposed within >> ITU): >> > >> > The current Internet governance framework could be enhanced to ensure >> greater and >> > more active participation of Governments in the formulation of >> international public >> > policy for information and communications technologies. Measures taken >> could >> > ensure better cooperation between Governments and other stakeholders in >> the policy >> > formulation process...It should be noted that there already exist >> intergovernmental bodies under the >> > United Nations umbrella that have strong participation of Governments, >> the >> > experience and also the necessary mandate. An improved governance >> framework >> > could leverage such existing structures to enhance Government >> participation, rather >> > than attempting to create new ones. Also, caution must be exercised when >> > suggesting that the Internet Governance Forum could play a >> decision-making role or >> > provide oversight functions in Internet-related public policy issues. >> > >> > An improved governance framework could be formed within which all >> countries >> > would have an equal say in Internet-related public policy issues and in >> the >> > management of critical Internet resources....An intergovernmental >> organization such as the International Telecommunication >> > Union (ITU) has the necessary mandate and hence could play a leading >> role in the >> > creation of such a governance structure. Resolution 102 of the 2006 ITU >> > Plenipotentiary Conference instructs the ITU. >> > >> > The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, >> stability and >> > reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies >> governing the >> > harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code >> top-level >> > domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body >> with >> > the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such >> services so that >> > concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account. >> > This delegation decision could be a result of coordination among all >> relevant >> > stakeholders, through discussions and debates at appropriate forums such >> as >> > intergovernmental council meetings. >> > >> > A country would retain sole control over the management of its assigned >> ccTLD in >> > accordance with paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information >> Society >> > which states that countries should not be involved in decisions >> regarding another >> > country’s ccTLD; and that their legitimate interests, as expressed and >> defined by >> > each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their >> ccTLDs, need to be >> > respected, upheld and addressed through a flexible and improved >> framework and >> > mechanism.The delegating body could retain an advisory role, if >> required, at the request of the >> > country concerned. Any difference that may arise between the two >> entities could be >> > resolved through an international/intergovernmental organization with >> the necessary >> > mandate. >> > >> > On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> > >> >> http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/proposals.shtml >> >> >> >> Sorry here is the link which works (you have to scroll down and to go >> to the various draft to fiond the two resolution which refer to the IGF and >> related IG issues. >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > *********************************************************** >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Advisor & Researcher >> ICT4D & Internet Governance >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: >> 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 20 11:17:15 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:47:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator In-Reply-To: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> References: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> It was great to work with Ian as a co-coordinator, and then to work under his leadership. It was as easy to disagree with him as to agree, and still keep the IGC processes going on very well. Ian handled many complex organizational issues both with great tact as well as authority (a typical Ian Peter mix), and many of these instances leave very important precedents for us to move forward. There are many firsts achieved under his leadership which I would not go into elaborating here. Ian could keep a solid front of neutrality needed for his job, while no one could say he did not hold strong views on almost all subjects. So, thanks a lot, Ian, from me and all of us. The IGC would for ever remain grateful to you! We look forward to keep working with you. Warm regards. Parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for Ian Peter as IGC > co-coordinator. His support, advice, knowledge and wisdom have helped > the IGC through a difficult year, and aided me immensely as "junior" > co-coordinator. > > Thanks Ian... ¡Muchas Gracias! > > Happy Holidays to all, > Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 20 11:40:47 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:40:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator In-Reply-To: <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I share Parminder's view, and I congratulate Jeremy for his new position. Thanks everyone who run for the election. I am glad to see lot of activity in the IGC list. All the best, Katitza On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Parminder wrote: > It was great to work with Ian as a co-coordinator, and then to work > under his leadership. It was as easy to disagree with him as to > agree, and still keep the IGC processes going on very well. Ian > handled many complex organizational issues both with great tact as > well as authority (a typical Ian Peter mix), and many of these > instances leave very important precedents for us to move forward. > There are many firsts achieved under his leadership which I would > not go into elaborating here. Ian could keep a solid front of > neutrality needed for his job, while no one could say he did not > hold strong views on almost all subjects. > > So, thanks a lot, Ian, from me and all of us. The IGC would for ever > remain grateful to you! We look forward to keep working with you. > Warm regards. Parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for Ian Peter as >> IGC co-coordinator. His support, advice, knowledge and wisdom have >> helped the IGC through a difficult year, and aided me immensely as >> "junior" co-coordinator. >> >> Thanks Ian... ¡Muchas Gracias! >> >> Happy Holidays to all, >> 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Dec 20 11:44:30 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:44:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator In-Reply-To: <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7D0B525C-9DE2-439F-976C-125EBC56AFA7@datos-personales.org> I share Parminder's view, Thank you Ian for your leadership. I congratulate Jeremy's for his new position. Thanks everyone who run for this election. I am glad to see lot of activity in the IGC list. All the best, Katitza On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Parminder wrote: > It was great to work with Ian as a co-coordinator, and then to work > under his leadership. It was as easy to disagree with him as to > agree, and still keep the IGC processes going on very well. Ian > handled many complex organizational issues both with great tact as > well as authority (a typical Ian Peter mix), and many of these > instances leave very important precedents for us to move forward. > There are many firsts achieved under his leadership which I would > not go into elaborating here. Ian could keep a solid front of > neutrality needed for his job, while no one could say he did not > hold strong views on almost all subjects. > > So, thanks a lot, Ian, from me and all of us. The IGC would for ever > remain grateful to you! We look forward to keep working with you. > Warm regards. Parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for Ian Peter as >> IGC co-coordinator. His support, advice, knowledge and wisdom have >> helped the IGC through a difficult year, and aided me immensely as >> "junior" co-coordinator. >> >> Thanks Ian... ¡Muchas Gracias! >> >> Happy Holidays to all, >> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 20 13:01:49 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:01:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results * In-Reply-To: References: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> <2bd2431a0912200300r4ea626cdxe90c19191d95df5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron < nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote: > Congratulations Jeremy > > A great delight to see were the cap. it fits you well as examplified by > your work. > > However , when Derrick alleges that people uses one machine to vote, that > sounds like a conundrum. Were the people in a conference and only one > machine was available for Internet access. > What is Derrick effectvely alluding to? > Could be a NAT or a proxy. For example, PJS and Guru work for the same org. They most likely have one public IP for the org, with NAT(RFC1918 addresses) inside their network. If two or more voters share the same IP, even if on different private networks, it could easily be that they share the same ISP who uses a proxy, so that all surfing of all customers appears to come from one IP address. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sun Dec 20 20:42:00 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:42:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2E35ED.8060605@rkey.com> Message-ID: <038d01ca81de$cb4d3d00$6a00a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Jeremy, Congratulations on the election result. I look forward to your continued leadership. Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. As we go forward I'd like to second Craig Simon's suggestion about "moving toward more advanced consensus-oriented systems that can remake the IGC into an exemplar of scalability and fairness in online discourse." Perhaps over the next year we might begin to explore ways our processes can benefit from Mr. Simon's and perhaps other consensus-oriented systems. This is not to detract from Derrick Cogburn's exemplary work and I suspect everyone shares sending him the big "THANK YOU" that he richly deserves. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Simon" To: Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results > Hello all, > > Congratulations to Jeremy, who has demonstrated a long-standing commitment > to serving the Internet community, and who has pursued that commitment > with admirable dedication. > > As we proceed with efforts to engage wider and more effective > participation in this forum, we should note that Jeremy's plurality was > less than 35% of the votes cast, and the next 2 candidates had over 53% > between them. Jeremy's election was certainly legitimate under current > rules and processes, but I hope that folks here will seriously consider > moving toward more advanced consensus-oriented systems that can remake the > IGC into an exemplar of scalability and fairness in online discourse and > decision-making. > > Craig Simon > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to >> announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the >> co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. >> >> The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For >> the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small >> number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in >> voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the >> same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are >> irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for >> individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. >> >> Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 >> members. >> Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 >> >> Jeremy Malcolm 45 >> Tim McGinnis 36 >> Fouad Bajwa 34 >> Rafik Dammak 11 >> None of the Above 5 >> >> Total Votes Cast 131 >> >> Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I >> appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. >> >> I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive >> year! >> >> Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at >> a very busy time of year. >> >> Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, >> Ginger Paque >> IGC Co-coordinator >> >> in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: >> >> and >> >> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >> Associate Professor of International Relations >> International Communication Program >> School of International Service >> American University >> 212 McCabe >> Washington, DC 20016-8071 >> +1.202.885.2400 >> http://www.american.edu/sis/ic >> >> Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and >> Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) >> http://cotelco.net/ >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 20 23:22:44 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:52:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2EF814.50509@itforchange.net> Congrats Jeremy! I am sure that the IGC will move further and negotiate well the complex though perhaps exciting issues and times it faces ahead under your co-coordinator ship. Very much look forward to working with you, and please count on all our support for this very important responsibility. Thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq (and, earlier, Tracy) for volunteering for this role, and providing such a good field of candidates. The election process, especially with its record 138 voters, proves that IGC is well alive and kicking. Parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy > to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For > the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small > number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in > voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the > same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are > irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for > individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: > 138 members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I > appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a > productive year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task > at a very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 20 23:30:23 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:00:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2EF814.50509@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2EF814.50509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B2EF9DF.2080809@itforchange.net> Also much thanks to Derrick for your selfless help and support. I am afraid we will just get too dependent on you, permanently :) . Regards. Parminder Parminder wrote: > Congrats Jeremy! > > I am sure that the IGC will move further and negotiate well the > complex though perhaps exciting issues and times it faces ahead under > your co-coordinator ship. Very much look forward to working with you, > and please count on all our support for this very important > responsibility. > > Thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq (and, earlier, Tracy) for > volunteering for this role, and providing such a good field of > candidates. The election process, especially with its record 138 > voters, proves that IGC is well alive and kicking. Parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy >> to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the >> co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. >> >> The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. >> For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a >> small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than >> once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that >> (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if >> there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote >> numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the >> election. >> >> Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: >> 138 members. >> Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 >> >> Jeremy Malcolm 45 >> Tim McGinnis 36 >> Fouad Bajwa 34 >> Rafik Dammak 11 >> None of the Above 5 >> >> Total Votes Cast 131 >> >> Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I >> appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. >> >> I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a >> productive year! >> >> Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex >> task at a very busy time of year. >> >> Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, >> Ginger Paque >> IGC Co-coordinator >> >> in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: >> >> and >> >> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >> Associate Professor of International Relations >> International Communication Program >> School of International Service >> American University >> 212 McCabe >> Washington, DC 20016-8071 >> +1.202.885.2400 >> http://www.american.edu/sis/ic >> >> Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and >> Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) >> http://cotelco.net/ >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ceo at bnnrc.net Mon Dec 21 01:19:23 2009 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:19:23 +0600 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2EF814.50509@itforchange.net> <4B2EF9DF.2080809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00d601ca8205$a1432520$1300a8c0@ceo> Dear Jeremy Malcolm, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC). Our heartiest felicitation to you for being elected of IGC co-coordinator . We believe that your wisdom and dynamic leadership, IGC will continue its institutional value around the world. With best wishes, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder Cc: Ginger Paque ; Derrick Cogburn ; Ian Peter Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Also much thanks to Derrick for your selfless help and support. I am afraid we will just get too dependent on you, permanently :) . Regards. Parminder Parminder wrote: Congrats Jeremy! I am sure that the IGC will move further and negotiate well the complex though perhaps exciting issues and times it faces ahead under your co-coordinator ship. Very much look forward to working with you, and please count on all our support for this very important responsibility. Thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq (and, earlier, Tracy) for volunteering for this role, and providing such a good field of candidates. The election process, especially with its record 138 voters, proves that IGC is well alive and kicking. Parminder Ginger Paque wrote: Hi everyone, As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 Jeremy Malcolm 45 Tim McGinnis 36 Fouad Bajwa 34 Rafik Dammak 11 None of the Above 5 Total Votes Cast 131 Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, Ginger Paque IGC Co-coordinator in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: and Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University 212 McCabe Washington, DC 20016-8071 +1.202.885.2400 http://www.american.edu/sis/ic Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Dec 21 01:11:41 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:11:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2EF9DF.2080809@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2EF814.50509@itforchange.net> <4B2EF9DF.2080809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39021.74866.qm@web55205.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy Many Congratulations. You have my support . I like to see the democratic process at work and in this spirit I thank Rafiq, Faud and Mctim, for coming forward.. Many Thanks To Ian for his term of Chairmanship. I look forward to furthering the work of the IGC Merry Christmas Happy Holidays to all Shaila Rao Mistry Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Ginger Paque ; Derrick Cogburn ; Ian Peter Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 8:30:23 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Also much thanks to Derrick for your selfless help and support. I am afraid we will just get too dependent on you, permanently :) . Regards. Parminder Parminder wrote: Congrats Jeremy! > >I am sure that the IGC will move further and negotiate well the complex though perhaps exciting issues and times it faces ahead under your co-coordinator ship. Very much look forward to working with you, and please count on all our support for this very important responsibility. > >Thanks also to Fouad, McTim and Rafiq (and, earlier, Tracy) for volunteering for this role, and providing such a good field of candidates. The election process, especially with its record 138 voters, proves that IGC is well alive and kicking. Parminder > >Ginger Paque wrote: >Re: Co-coordinator Election Results [please review before I send] Hi everyone, >>As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. >> >>The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. >> >>Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. >>Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 >> >>Jeremy Malcolm 45 >>Tim McGinnis 36 >>FouadBajwa 34 >>RafikDammak 11 >>None of the Above 5 >> >>Total Votes Cast 131 >> >>Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. >> >>I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! >> >>Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. >> >>Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, >>Ginger Paque >>IGC Co-coordinator >> >>in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: >> >> Re: Co-coordinator Election Results [please review before and >> >>Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>Associate Professor of International Relations >>International Communication Program >>School of International Service >>American University >>212 McCabe >>Washington, DC 20016-8071 >>+1.202.885.2400 >>http://www.american.edu/sis/ic >> >>Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and >>Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) >>http://cotelco.net/ >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Dec 21 01:14:12 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:14:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator In-Reply-To: <7D0B525C-9DE2-439F-976C-125EBC56AFA7@datos-personales.org> References: <4B2D532E.3080901@gmail.com> <4B2E4E0B.8070000@itforchange.net> <7D0B525C-9DE2-439F-976C-125EBC56AFA7@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <696167.38947.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thank you Ian for your work and your contributions. Time is always of the essence and we are grateful that you us gave yours !! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! From: Katitza Rodriguez To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Ian Peter Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 8:44:30 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Thanks to Ian Peter, outgoing IGC co-coordinator I share Parminder's view, Thank you Ian for your leadership. I congratulate Jeremy's for his new position. Thanks everyone who run for this election. I am glad to see lot of activity in the IGC list. All the best, Katitza On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Parminder wrote: It was great to work with Ian as a co-coordinator, and then to work under his leadership. It was as easy to disagree with him as to agree, and still keep the IGC processes going on very well. Ian handled many complex organizational issues both with great tact as well as authority (a typical Ian Peter mix), and many of these instances leave very important precedents for us to move forward. There are many firsts achieved under his leadership which I would not go into elaborating here. Ian could keep a solid front of neutrality needed for his job, while no one could say he did not hold strong views on almost all subjects. > >So, thanks a lot, Ian, from me and all of us. The IGC would for ever remain grateful to you! We look forward to keep working with you. Warm regards. Parminder > >Ginger Paque wrote: >I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for Ian Peter as IGC co-coordinator. His support, advice, knowledge and wisdom have helped the IGC through a difficult year, and aided me immensely as "junior" co-coordinator. >> >>Thanks Ian... ¡Muchas Gracias! >> >>Happy Holidays to all, >>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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 06:03:59 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:03:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger/ Derrick Out of curiosity, how many members are subscribed to this list? 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque : > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm     45 > Tim McGinnis         36 > Fouad Bajwa          34 > Rafik Dammak        11 > None of the Above    5 > > Total Votes Cast    131 > ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 06:32:03 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:02:03 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 06:39:46 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:39:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for contributions to February 2010 Message-ID: <701af9f70912210339v2c27b230p1ccdef45cabd73ce@mail.gmail.com> I just found out about this. The IGF Secretariat has given out a call for contributions to be submitted by 15 January 2010 for input into the February 2010 Open Consultations/MAG Meetings. I would like to request IGC to create our input paper and submit: Call for contributions: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Written contributions that take stock of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting and provide suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting are welcome and will be posted on an ongoing basis. Please send the contributions to igf at unog.ch . All contributions submitted by 15 January 2010 will be reflected in a paper prepared as an input for the february consultations. Contributions are available here:http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/contributions A further round of consultations will take place on 10 May 2010 followed by a MAG meeting on 11-12 May 2010 at the Palais des Nations. SO far they have received the following contributions: - DYNAMIC COALITION ON INTERNET AND CLIMATE CHANGE (DCICC) Statement On Climate Change and the Internet - APC's assessment of the fourth Internet Governance Forum I have also noted that IGC is not well mentioned on the contributions section. Is that a lacking from our end, lets improve that and respond to all these calls and make effective contributions! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: 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 Mon Dec 21 08:18:52 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:18:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT ] Message-ID: Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT] The official winter solstice will take place at 12:47 pm [EST USA] (1747 GMT) when at that exact moment, the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from the sun. Tonight will be the shortest day of the year, followed by the longest night of the year, meaning that it will be getting darker earlier tonight and getting lighter later than normal tomorrow morning. You may experience a slight discomfort - Buckle your seatbelt and Hold On ! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 21 08:31:10 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:31:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> Message-ID: Hi Ginger Thanks for your speedy and comprehensive reply. A few ideas (for mid-January, when people are back to the real world): 1. Get members who want to receive emails at more than one address to select their primary address, remove others, and then locally (at their end) set up automated forwards to their other addresses. We could draw up a list of instructions for Outlook/ Eudora/ Gmail/ Yahoo/ Hotmail etc for those with might need any assistance. I was list co-administrator of the WSIS Content & Themes Caucus (ct at wsis-cs.org), so I know that quite a few people have difficulty with these things. 2. Create a new address, to make life easier (eg: verify-subscription at ....), add that address as a new list member, from that address post to the list requesting members to confirm their membership. [Subject: Please type your name in the subject field] [Email body: Kindly fill in Your Name in the subject field of this email and click reply. If you receive this request at more than one address, please do the same for each address] Using an email programme with CSV script (Comma-Separated Values) like outlook or thunderbird, you can then highlight, copy, paste the "From" column and paste onto a Word document and arrange (Table, Sort, Arrange by, Paragraphs) alphabetically. You will then at glance be able to see the duplicate names and deal with those. Send out this email at weekly intervals for three weeks, EACH TIME REMINDING members NOT to reply IF they have ALREADY DONE SO. [Apologies for caps, but neither underline nor bold are reliable features when working with email]. By week 4 send out an advisory informing members that if they failed to reply to the request for confirmation that their addresses will be removed from the list. Hope (some of) this helps. Best regards, Rui 2009/12/21 Ginger Paque : > Hi Rui, > There are currently 426 email addresses on the IGC mailing list. Some of > those are bouncing, some of those are no longer members, and some are > duplicate email addresses for members who choose to have the IGC list emails > sent to more than one address. So this number cannot be considered the > number of IGC "members".  I do not actually know how many "members" this > represents, and one of our projects for this year is to organize this more > efficiently. > > The number of current members who can vote on a charter amendment this year > is a maximum of 138, those who affirmed membership in the recent > co-coordinator election. This number may be reduced pending the outcome of > the election analysis and report. > > If you have any more questions, or would like to work on this project, > please do let us know. > > Best, > Ginger > > > > Rui Correia wrote: > > Hi Ginger/ Derrick > > Out of curiosity, how many members are subscribed to this list? > > 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque : > > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > > > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm     45 > Tim McGinnis         36 > Fouad Bajwa          34 > Rafik Dammak        11 > None of the Above    5 > > Total Votes Cast    131 > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 08:37:20 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:37:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT ] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Yehuda Just a small observation - "the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from the sun", should read "the earth’s axial tilt puts THE NORTH POLE the farthest from the sun". (Conversely, the South Pole will reach its closest point to the sun. Rui 2009/12/21 Yehuda Katz : > Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT] > > The official winter solstice will take place at 12:47 pm [EST USA] (1747 GMT) > when at that exact moment, the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from > the sun. > > Tonight will be the shortest day of the year, followed by the longest night of > the year, meaning that it will be getting darker earlier tonight and getting > lighter later than normal tomorrow morning. > > You may experience a slight discomfort - Buckle your seatbelt and Hold On ! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Dec 21 09:09:51 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:09:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> Message-ID: <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> On 21 Dec 2009, at 13:31, Rui Correia wrote: [snip a lot of mailing list hacking] > Hope (some of) this helps. I am failing to understand a couple of things: We have a formal process for identifying voting members as it stands so why should the mailing list duplicate that process? Not everyone on the list may wish to be a member or may for various other reasons be unable to formally join. Not everyone can just set up redirects of email, I fail to see why they can't have multiple subscribed addresses on the list. I do object to the idea of a list of all the subscribers being posted every week for a month. Removing the bouncing subscriptions seems about the right level of list pruning to me. ---- Moving onto election processes - can I suggest consideration of STV voting? Single Transferable Vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote . We use it within Working Groups at the RIPE RIR for electing Co- Chairs, eg the two recent EIX-WG elections, and it is used in Euro-IX the IXP trade association for Board Election. It allows a voter to express preferences as well as a single choice candidate. You only vote for who you want to vote for, even if it is only one person. And of course congratulations to Jeremy, and thanks to Ian for all your hard work. Commiserations & thanks for standing to the other candidates. Regards Fearghas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cls at rkey.com Mon Dec 21 10:08:50 2009 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:08:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <4B2F8F82.2070403@rkey.com> Fearghas McKay wrote: > Moving onto election processes - can I suggest consideration of STV > voting? Single Transferable Vote > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote . > > We use it within Working Groups at the RIPE RIR for electing Co-Chairs, > eg the two recent EIX-WG elections, and it is used in Euro-IX the IXP > trade association for Board Election. It allows a voter to express > preferences as well as a single choice candidate. You only vote for who > you want to vote for, even if it is only one person. -- FYI, like STV, the system I've been developing emphasizes ranked choice voting. It uses a combination of Borda Count and Instant Runoff Voting algorithms to tabulate results. Craig Simon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Dec 21 11:44:32 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:44:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] Season Greetings Message-ID: <001d01ca825c$edb05980$c9110c80$@com.br> Warm wishes for 2010 full of joy, health and huge success! Best to all cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 http://www.brickmann.com.br/natal/veado.gif -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 25967 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From glaser at nic.br Mon Dec 21 11:59:34 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:59:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Season Greetings In-Reply-To: <001d01ca825c$edb05980$c9110c80$@com.br> References: <001d01ca825c$edb05980$c9110c80$@com.br> Message-ID: <4B2FA976.3010006@nic.br> De: Hartmut Glaser -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Natal 2009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 232087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 12:21:28 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:21:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: Dear Fearghas Firstly, my email was in response to issues/ problems raised by the list moderator, who would be in a position to know that these are problems. I merely offered suggestions to address these issues. Secondly, you are confusing a couple of things. The 'members' I am referring to are the members of the list, the subscribers - nothing to do with voting members or voting processes. Anybody can set up redirects - if you are talking about lack of skills to do so, I did mention a help guide. As for multiple subscriptions, again, this is an issue raised by Ginger, as a factor that makes it difficult to ascertain how many members/ subscribers we are. I never said anything about "a list of all the subscribers being posted". I said posting TO the list. If what you are getting at is the possibility that some members would like to remain anonymous, then you have a point. It would be necessary to highlight that when doing the confirmation it would b necessary to REMOVE the list address, replying only to the administrator. As for anonymity, the subscriber options allow subscribers to conceal their presence on the list from PUBLIC viewing. However, the admin people surely can/ should be able to see ALL the subscribers. Therefore, any exercise undertaken by them to sort out issues with the list will not compromise anyone's desire to remain anonymous. Regards, Rui 2009/12/21 Fearghas McKay : > > On 21 Dec 2009, at 13:31, Rui Correia wrote: > > [snip a lot of mailing list hacking] > >> Hope (some of) this helps. > > I am failing to understand a couple of things: > > We have a formal process for identifying voting members as it stands so why > should the mailing list duplicate that process? Not everyone on the list may > wish to be a member or may for various other reasons be unable to formally > join. > > Not everyone can just set up redirects of email, I fail to see why they > can't have multiple subscribed addresses on the list. > > I do object to the idea of a list of all the subscribers being posted every > week for a month. > > Removing the bouncing subscriptions seems about the right level of list > pruning to me. > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 13:56:17 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:56:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results * In-Reply-To: References: <579033820350037319@unknownmsgid> <3fd69ee0912192319o13ab9c12s6f89f8cf355ab59c@mail.gmail.com> <2bd2431a0912200300r4ea626cdxe90c19191d95df5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Appology As every one would have recognized I wanted to say "you wear" in the jumbeld opening sentence of my encomium to Jeremy. Jeremy, A great delight to see you wear the cap. Merry Xmas Aaron 2009/12/20 McTim > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron < > nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Congratulations Jeremy >> >> A great delight to see were the cap. it fits you well as examplified by >> your work. >> >> However , when Derrick alleges that people uses one machine to vote, that >> sounds like a conundrum. Were the people in a conference and only one >> machine was available for Internet access. >> What is Derrick effectvely alluding to? >> > > > Could be a NAT or a proxy. For example, PJS and Guru work for the same > org. They most likely have one public IP for the org, with NAT(RFC1918 > addresses) inside their network. > > If two or more voters share the same IP, even if on different private > networks, it could easily be that they share the same ISP who uses a proxy, > so that all surfing of all customers appears to come from one IP address. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 14:29:44 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:14:44 +0545 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to Jeremy for being elected as the new coordinator of IGC. Thanks to Fouad, Tim and Rafik for making this process more democratic and bringing in such a wonderful pool of expertize, the diversity and their expertise must had been one of the reason to bring 138 members on the voting role. Also, a great appriciation to Ian for this volunterism to IGC for his tenure as coordinator. Just on a different note (differing from Craig Simon), in the democracies that we are practicing here in South Asia, the coalition form of democracy also serves the minorities in a good way and saves from being autocrated by the democracies of the majority. The rest of the percentages shows the richness and diversity that we have in the group and a recogniztion that they bring with them for the community. Also, many thanks to Derrick for your continious support to the IGC in this process. Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the > record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number > of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. > However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer > used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these > would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not > the final result of the election. > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate > your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive > year! > > Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a > very busy time of year. > > Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, > Ginger Paque > IGC Co-coordinator > > in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: > > and > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > 212 McCabe > Washington, DC 20016-8071 > +1.202.885.2400 > http://www.american.edu/sis/ic > > Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Dec 21 14:46:02 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:46:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19/12/2009, at 10:53 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I > appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. > > I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a > productive year! Many thanks! I am travelling at the moment, so please excuse my delayed response. I just discovered the election result a moment ago and am still overcoming my disbelief. With much gratitude, I promise to act with diligence and passion in this role - though I hope you may excuse me if I am unable to begin to do so until after I return from my Christmas travels in two weeks. Thanks also to those who have conveyed private messages of congratulation to me. Please don't assume that I am ignoring your well wishes just because I haven't responded to you personally yet; I have been off-line for several days and will catch up on my email over the next 24 hours or so. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur 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 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 21 15:37:04 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:37:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF389@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Likewise, Congrats to Jeremy, and thanks to Ian for serving so well. A special thanks to Fouad, Tim, Rafik, and Derrick. Best wishes to all for a great 2010! Lee McKnight ________________________________________ From: Hempal Shrestha [hempalshrestha at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Derrick Cogburn; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results Congratulations to Jeremy for being elected as the new coordinator of IGC. Thanks to Fouad, Tim and Rafik for making this process more democratic and bringing in such a wonderful pool of expertize, the diversity and their expertise must had been one of the reason to bring 138 members on the voting role. Also, a great appriciation to Ian for this volunterism to IGC for his tenure as coordinator. Just on a different note (differing from Craig Simon), in the democracies that we are practicing here in South Asia, the coalition form of democracy also serves the minorities in a good way and saves from being autocrated by the democracies of the majority. The rest of the percentages shows the richness and diversity that we have in the group and a recogniztion that they bring with them for the community. Also, many thanks to Derrick for your continious support to the IGC in this process. Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Hi everyone, As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. The results are as follows, and shown in Derrick's attached graph. For the record and future reference, we are investigating further a small number of cases where the same IP address was used more than once in voting. However, there could be legitimate reasons for that (i.e. the same computer used by several colleagues). In any case, if there are irregularities these would only affect the final vote numbers for individual candidates, but not the final result of the election. Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 members. Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 Jeremy Malcolm 45 Tim McGinnis 36 Fouad Bajwa 34 Rafik Dammak 11 None of the Above 5 Total Votes Cast 131 Congratulations and great appreciation to all four candidates. I appreciate your willingness to run and to serve. I look forward to working with Jeremy--I'm sure we will have a productive year! Special thanks to Derrick for once again undertaking this complex task at a very busy time of year. Best wishes for the Winter/Summer holidays, Ginger Paque IGC Co-coordinator in collaboration with outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter: and Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University 212 McCabe Washington, DC 20016-8071 +1.202.885.2400 http://www.american.edu/sis/ic Director, Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Dec 21 16:36:02 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:36:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <3865FBF3-3442-4B65-B4E8-BBEAC3B61F2D@st-kilda.org> On 21 Dec 2009, at 17:21, Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Fearghas > > Firstly, my email was in response to issues/ problems raised by the > list moderator, who would be in a position to know that these are > problems. I merely offered suggestions to address these issues. > yes > Secondly, you are confusing a couple of things. The 'members' I am > referring to are the members of the list, the subscribers - nothing to > do with voting members or voting processes. > no I am not > Anybody can set up redirects - if you are talking about lack of skills > to do so, I did mention a help guide. As for multiple subscriptions, > again, this is an issue raised by Ginger, as a factor that makes it > difficult to ascertain how many members/ subscribers we are. > No not everyone can. I am a relative newcomer to running mailing lists having been doing it since the mid 80's but I am dealing with this issue currently for several lists. > I never said anything about "a list of all the subscribers being > posted". I said posting TO the list. > err posted to the list is the issue. > If what you are getting at is the possibility that some members would > like to remain anonymous, then you have a point. It would be necessary > to highlight that when doing the confirmation it would b necessary to > REMOVE the list address, replying only to the administrator. > see above > As for anonymity, the subscriber options allow subscribers to conceal > their presence on the list from PUBLIC viewing. However, the admin > people surely can/ should be able to see ALL the subscribers. > Therefore, any exercise undertaken by them to sort out issues with the > list will not compromise anyone's desire to remain anonymous. > until you post to the list. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Dec 21 18:13:09 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:13:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2F8F82.2070403@rkey.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> <4B2F8F82.2070403@rkey.com> Message-ID: On 21 Dec 2009, at 15:08, Craig Simon wrote: > FYI, like STV, the system I've been developing emphasizes ranked > choice voting. It uses a combination of Borda Count and Instant > Runoff Voting algorithms to tabulate results. One of the advantages of STV is it that it is relatively simple to explain, but even then it usually needs an explanation to a significant percentage of the electorate. Is the addition of Borda Count & Runoff Voting algorithms were the extra complexity of explaining ? Is Better the enemy of Good Enough? Simplicity is always easier to sell and understand - once you start talking about Borda Counts et al I get confused and I am involved with running elections most years for co-chairs/fellow directors. For occasional electors complex voting systens are a barrier to understanding and believing in the election process, in my opinion. Perhaps even for regular electors. Regards f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Dec 21 20:11:18 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:11:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> <4B2F8F82.2070403@rkey.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0912211711y5f1a9216uf76320d2bfcbcdd9@mail.gmail.com> We ought to look at two discrete but related issues (1) How one establishes themselves as a member and/or is purged from member voting rights, and (2) The issue of anonymity as it creates serious issues for ballot stuffing if both the listserv "public" and/or election administrators are unable to solidly verify voter identity. Issue (1): Earlier in this thread, the act of voting in this particular coordinator election was termed an "affirmation" (sigh) of membership. This is peculiar and, as far as I can recall at this moment, unprecedented in this respect: The percentage of people who vote is always, even in those cases where failure to vote is a criminal or civil violation, some fraction of the whole of 100%. Only where the failure to vote is repeated over several elections AND not accompanied by any other statement of intent to remain or be a member are voters effectively dropped from membership. The policy that voting in this particular election defines future voting membership sets a presumption in favor of exclusion rather than inclusion. There are numerous legitimate reasons why good members would either intentionally not vote, or not be able to vote for a week or more due to travel or illness, or not be able to decide on the best candidate in time for the end of the election. None of these non-voters should be prevented from voting in the future (if indeed there's any such intent regarding future elections). The thing to do is send SEVERAL emails over a significant course of weeks (plus other communication methods if possible) to insure as close to 100% chance of actual notice to potential voters before any are purged. If the voter is real and participating in conversations on this listserv from time to time, that in itself should relieve administrators of any efforts related to possibly purging that voter. With an appropriate presumption of inclusion rather than exclusion, it should be relatively easy to register to vote (provided there are the proofs of identity and no double voting, see below) and relatively difficult to purge a member from the voting rolls. Issue (2) On the second concern: If I understood this thread correctly, then it is possible to be a voting member without any of the other voting members knowing who the anonymous person is (under any circumstances, provided the anonymous member acts appropriately so as not to "blow their cover." Presumably, list administrators have more information about the identity of list members, or may require such, but it's the nature of the internet to facilitate anonymity and/or multiple identities. Without the ability, when it comes to the act of voting, for *both* the voters as well as the election administrators to be able to verify the legitimate identity of a voter, there's nothing to stop stuffed and therefore fraudulent ballot box results from occurring, either from the outside, the membership, and/or the election administrators. To give just one example, anonymous listmembers who vote could well be "superdelegates" or repeat voters either for very active and computer-sophisticated users or for coordinators/administrators or any other party with an interest in the elections here. Winners of elections are entitled to the full confidence (presuming it exists) of the legitimacy of their victory. Election systems ought not to be designed from the start so that one can not tell the difference from the outside between a legitimate election and a fixed election. As to this election, it was mentioned that there was more than one vote from the same IP address. It's both possible this is legitimate and possible it's not legitimate. I don't resolve that issue raised spontaneously by administrators one way or another other. However, but I do affirmatively say that the LACK of evidence (including knowing how the voting members are) from which any member might determine the truth of the matter is certainly a problem. It leaves no rational basis upon which to conclude the election went properly (my trust in the election administrators being more of a faith-based choice and not a rational basis conclusion from evidence). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 12/21/09, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 21 Dec 2009, at 15:08, Craig Simon wrote: > >> FYI, like STV, the system I've been developing emphasizes ranked >> choice voting. It uses a combination of Borda Count and Instant >> Runoff Voting algorithms to tabulate results. > > One of the advantages of STV is it that it is relatively simple to > explain, but even then it usually needs an explanation to a > significant percentage of the electorate. > > Is the addition of Borda Count & Runoff Voting algorithms were the > extra complexity of explaining ? Is Better the enemy of Good Enough? > > Simplicity is always easier to sell and understand - once you start > talking about Borda Counts et al I get confused and I am involved with > running elections most years for co-chairs/fellow directors. > > For occasional electors complex voting systens are a barrier to > understanding and believing in the election process, in my opinion. > > Perhaps even for regular electors. > > Regards > > f > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cls at rkey.com Mon Dec 21 21:30:51 2009 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:30:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <75095D3D-3652-4E59-A964-D2A8D4105022@st-kilda.org> <4B2F8F82.2070403@rkey.com> Message-ID: <4B302F5B.6080401@rkey.com> Fearghas McKay wrote: > One of the advantages of STV is it that it is relatively simple to > explain, but even then it usually needs an explanation to a significant > percentage of the electorate. I'm very curious about why you might think STV is easier to explain than typical IRV. > Is the addition of Borda Count & Runoff Voting algorithms were the extra > complexity of explaining ? Is Better the enemy of Good Enough? The key to success is providing an easy-to-use ballot that lets people rank the available options. Nearly everyone gets the idea of ranking right away. Relatively few bother arguing the nuances of different tabulation systems. As with any voting system, when people worry, they worry most about whether the systems they use are well protected against counting errors, ballot stuffing, and other kinds of manipulation. And rightly so. The tabulation system is important nevertheless. For the most part, it's a matter of picking your poison. A strong winner will be the clear winner in any reasonable system. The challenge comes in deciding which system promises greater fairness when outcomes are relatively close. > Simplicity is always easier to sell and understand - once you start > talking about Borda Counts et al I get confused and I am involved with > running elections most years for co-chairs/fellow directors. > > For occasional electors complex voting systens are a barrier to > understanding and believing in the election process, in my opinion. > > Perhaps even for regular electors. My experience is that the Borda Count is the easiest ranked choice system to explain. Actually, I've implemented a modified Borda. 1st place counts as 1. 2nd as 0.5. 3rd as 0.33. 4th as 0.25. Etc. Add 'em up. Instead of calling it Borda Count, I call it Depth of Support. I've also implemented a visualization that helps people see the constituents of the support depth. It's very useful in portraying how some candidates are polarizing (lots of 1st place votes and few others) while others are strong consensus options (dominating 2nd place) I find Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to be the 2nd easiest ranked choice system to explain... Winning depends on surpassing a 50% threshold of votes cast. If no one gets 50% on the first round, then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. All the people who voted for the round's loser get their vote distributed to the candidate they named as their 2nd choice. If no one has yet reached 50%, then the new last-place candidate is eliminated and more backup choices are elevated. And so on. The virtue of IRV is that all the participants get to voice their most honest preferences. The system's round-by-round elevation of backup rankings eliminates the fear that votes for seemingly peripheral candidates are wasted, undercutting the chances of a more widely acceptable candidate. In fact, the IRV visualization I created is designed to show which constituents coalesced to elect the consensus choice, and which constituents coalesced in opposition. IRV is going to become even easier to explain soon, since it will be used for the upcoming Oscars (the film industry Academy Awards), and is likely to become more resonant in popular culture. The system I find exceptionally hard to explain is Condorcet. It's been even harder to provide a good visualization tool. So I won't get into it. Some voting wonks might want to argue the virtues of range voting over ranked voting. Having LOTS of experience with both systems, I'd be glad to do it. But, for those who've read this far, I'd like to make it clear that settling on a voting system is only one aspect of developing an online democratic venue worthy of the name. The greater challenge is finding a way to channel discourse productively when huge numbers of people are demanding to speak and be heard. Think HUGE. I've been sketching out a radically scalable kind of content vetting mechanism, and my bet is that ranked choice formats offer the most promise toward achieving that goal. Craig Simon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 22 10:33:55 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:03:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Rui, > There are currently 426 email addresses on the IGC mailing list. Some > of those are bouncing, some of those are no longer members, and some > are duplicate email addresses for members who choose to have the IGC > list emails sent to more than one address. So this number cannot be > considered the number of IGC "members". I do not actually know how > many "members" this represents, and one of our projects for this year > is to organize this more efficiently. > > The number of current members who can vote on a charter amendment this > year is a maximum of 138, those who affirmed membership in the recent > co-coordinator election. This number may be reduced pending the > outcome of the election analysis and report. > > If you have any more questions, or would like to work on this project, > please do let us know. Hi Ginger It will be great if you can accomplish this 'project' of clarifying many issues/ questions often raised about IGC membership. I will be glad to be of any help in this matter. Regards. Parminder > > Best, > Ginger > > > > Rui Correia wrote: >> Hi Ginger/ Derrick >> >> Out of curiosity, how many members are subscribed to this list? >> >> 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque : >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to >>> announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the >>> co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. >>> >> >> >>> Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 >>> members. >>> Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm 45 >>> Tim McGinnis 36 >>> Fouad Bajwa 34 >>> Rafik Dammak 11 >>> None of the Above 5 >>> >>> Total Votes Cast 131 >>> >>> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison 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 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 10:46:02 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:16:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B30E9BA.4050508@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 correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 10:59:32 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:59:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B30E9BA.4050508@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> <4B30E9BA.4050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, Parminder et al I would be more than happy to help. Best regards and a peaceful time in the company of your dear ones. Rui 2009/12/22 Ginger Paque : > Hi Parminder and all, > > Parminder wrote: It will be great if you can accomplish this 'project' of > clarifying many issues/ questions often raised about IGC membership. I will > be glad to be of any help in this matter. Regards. Parminder > > Parminder, I would like to take you up on your offer to work on this > project. Once Derrick has returned from Christmas/family holidays in mid > January, we can take this up. Perhaps Rui, Paul Lehto and Craig Simon would > help with more "theoretical guidelines" once we have the "technical" > foundation of the list in order. > > Jeremy will coordinate a discussion to prepare a substantive IGC position on > the future of the IGF, which is a high priority for us. I do not know if he > will be able to have something ready as a statement before the January 15th > deadline, but in any case, we can hope to have a position prepared for the > OC in February. > > I look forward to a very fruitful 2010 for the IGC. Thanks everyone! > Best, Ginger > > > > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Rui, > There are currently 426 email addresses on the IGC mailing list. Some of > those are bouncing, some of those are no longer members, and some are > duplicate email addresses for members who choose to have the IGC list emails > sent to more than one address. So this number cannot be considered the > number of IGC "members".  I do not actually know how many "members" this > represents, and one of our projects for this year is to organize this more > efficiently. > > The number of current members who can vote on a charter amendment this year > is a maximum of 138, those who affirmed membership in the recent > co-coordinator election. This number may be reduced pending the outcome of > the election analysis and report. > > If you have any more questions, or would like to work on this project, > please do let us know. > > Hi Ginger > > It will be great if you can accomplish this 'project' of clarifying many > issues/ questions often raised about IGC membership. I will be glad to be of > any help in this matter. Regards. Parminder > > Best, > Ginger > > > > Rui Correia wrote: > > Hi Ginger/ Derrick > > Out of curiosity, how many members are subscribed to this list? > > 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque : > > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > > > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm     45 > Tim McGinnis         36 > Fouad Bajwa          34 > Rafik Dammak        11 > None of the Above    5 > > Total Votes Cast    131 > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jfcallo at isocperu.org Tue Dec 22 11:38:31 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:38:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feliz Navidad In-Reply-To: <4B2FA976.3010006@nic.br> References: <001d01ca825c$edb05980$c9110c80$@com.br> <4B2FA976.3010006@nic.br> Message-ID: <20091222113831.cmtfh4x0gggc848k@www.isocperu.org> Respetable Harmut Richard: Gracias por vuestro mensaje y aprovecho tambien para desear a los miembros de esta lista, una Feliz Navidad y Venturoso 2010. Fraternalmente Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 11:59:00 2009 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:59:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2bd2431a0912220859n748ac9ffv39baec34dfcffdd1@mail.gmail.com> Ginger good morning. I will like to work on this project Antonio Medina 2009/12/22 Parminder > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Rui, > There are currently 426 email addresses on the IGC mailing list. Some of > those are bouncing, some of those are no longer members, and some are > duplicate email addresses for members who choose to have the IGC list emails > sent to more than one address. So this number cannot be considered the > number of IGC "members". I do not actually know how many "members" this > represents, and one of our projects for this year is to organize this more > efficiently. > > The number of current members who can vote on a charter amendment this year > is a maximum of 138, those who affirmed membership in the recent > co-coordinator election. This number may be reduced pending the outcome of > the election analysis and report. > > If you have any more questions, or would like to work on this project, > please do let us know. > > Hi Ginger > > It will be great if you can accomplish this 'project' of clarifying many > issues/ questions often raised about IGC membership. I will be glad to be of > any help in this matter. Regards. Parminder > > > Best, > Ginger > > > > Rui Correia wrote: > > Hi Ginger/ Derrick > > Out of curiosity, how many members are subscribed to this list? > > 2009/12/20 Ginger Paque : > > > Hi everyone, > As our voting coordinator, Derrick Cogburn, is traveling, I am happy to > announce the results of the IGC co-coordinator election for the > co-coordinator to replace outgoing co-coordinator Ian Peter. > > > Voters who accepted the IGC charter, and participated in the process: 138 > members. > Total Votes Cast for Co-coordinator: 131 > > Jeremy Malcolm 45 > Tim McGinnis 36 > Fouad Bajwa 34 > Rafik Dammak 11 > None of the Above 5 > > Total Votes Cast 131 > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 22 12:12:08 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:12:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] EU on IGF References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871998B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.27994!menu/standard/file/20091211_EU_letter_UN_SG.pdf wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Dec 22 12:31:47 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:31:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Co-coordinator Election Results In-Reply-To: <4B30E9BA.4050508@gmail.com> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <4B2F5CB3.1030001@paque.net> <4B30E6E3.5040705@itforchange.net> <4B30E9BA.4050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87CFF6FF-9DE2-46E4-B439-89B02C505B18@psg.com> On 22 Dec 2009, at 10:46, Ginger Paque wrote: > Parminder wrote: It will be great if you can accomplish this 'project' of clarifying many issues/ questions often raised about IGC membership. I will be glad to be of any help in this matter. Regards. Parminder > Parminder, I would like to take you up on your offer to work on this project. Once Derrick has returned from Christmas/family holidays in mid January, we can take this up. Perhaps Rui, Paul Lehto and Craig Simon would help with more "theoretical guidelines" once we have the "technical" foundation of the list in order. As one of the 'silent' people who think the form of membership and voting we have is a good thing and something that works well, I do look forward to being able to comment on the results of this group's work before any charter ammendment votes are taken. I think that linking certain activities with having voted is critical in that it really shows how many active members there are who care about the IGC enough to bother voting. By having the vote open all list members we never exclude someone who has not voted before, but by leaving each years decisions in the hands of those who cared enough to vote we know that decisions are being made by those who actively align themselves with the charter - and any changes that might have been accepted during the year. I also think that that the simpler the rules are, the better. So while one could add clauses for the person who is active and joins the list midway between elections, the complication will not really do much to advance the cause of the IGC and its ability to show how wide a demographic it has. One thing that might be interesting (before we get into discussion about whether this is a northern thing or a southern thing) is to have someone determine the demographic mix of those who did vote. And of course this only counts for votes and nomcom activities as, every one always has a voice on everything - they just need to exercise it. 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 glaser at nic.br Tue Dec 22 12:49:43 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:49:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Merry Christmas ... In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B2D5977.9010705@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871998B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B3106B7.2050004@nic.br> >From Hartmut Glaser ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Natal 2009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 232087 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Dec 23 04:54:03 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:54:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. Any proposal? BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org Wed Dec 23 06:01:18 2009 From: francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ullmann) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:01:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1261566078-c0a9bab5a721eba7c57fac5c3aef46b4@ingenieursdumonde.org> Many thanks for this message. I will be there and may be with my deputy to ITU Best regards ----- Message d'origine ----- De: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:54:03 +0100 Sujet: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID À: Tim Unwin , George Sadowsky , Michael Gurstein , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Dear list one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. Any proposal? BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Dec 23 09:20:13 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:20:13 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into the Plenipot discussion...? Bill Sent from my iPhone On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear list > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > Any proposal? > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Dec 23 10:43:46 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:43:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <26793748.88285.1261583026439.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all I think there is also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Hello > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > e> wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 17:46:27 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:46:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <26793748.88285.1261583026439.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Message-ID: <6B175272133C459497ABDF6270CE3C58@userPC> The issue is only partially one of lack of funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly widespread mobile and broadband infrastructures) either through donor resources or from Universal Services funds but there is an overall lack of knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. Doing the assessments, building the knowledge bases, bringing together those with the experience as developers and end users, developing the multistakeholder issue oriented dialogues and networks is the role that is currently lacking and has been lacking since WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do some of this but they didn't, the IGF dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in current speak non-multistakeholder...) So where to go from here... Best to all for the season! M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all I think there is also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Hello > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > e> wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Dec 23 23:28:46 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:28:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] MIIT - China Syndrome Message-ID: The following articles were interesting, When I read "... the UN Internet standards body the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) said ..." I had to LOL. Anyway Enjoy China wants to meter web traffic http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1566760/china-meter-web-traffic [Excerpt] ... Strangely the UN internet standards body the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) said that it was not clear how introducing tariffs could threaten Internet security or stability. It said the Chinese proposal did not involve modifying the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). All it involved was using BGP routers to collect traffic flow data, which could be used under bilateral agreements by operators for billing purposes. For the last ten years there have been talks about international Internet tariffs and the Chinese proposal was one of many ideas of being studied by ITU. But Servida warned that the BGP protocol is an Internet Engineering Task Force standard and is not under the control of the ITU. He said that "the involvement of [the] ITU in this specific matter is highly questionable and alarming". ... - China announces draconian net regulations http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567001/china-announces-draconian-net-regulations [Excerpt] THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is making ISPs and website owners bow to strict rules requiring website registration with Chinese government agencies. In a tyrannical move the Chinese government has issued Internet regulations that mean that all websites must register with it and be whitelisted before Chinese Internet users will be permitted to access them. ... - China moves closer to a smut-free internet http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/22/china_white_list/ China, which last week effectively ended its citizens' right to register a .cn web address, will now only allow access to websites which have been fully registered with the authorities. Individuals will now need a business licence to register a web address. The Ministry of Industry and Information released more details of measures it says are designed to remove pornographic content from China's version of the internet. The reality is that changes are likely to remove a lot more than just smut. The five points include a blacklist of individuals who have previously breached the rules to stop them registering new domains. The Ministry will also tighten existing registration requirements and more importantly websites which are not registered will not resolve for Chinese surfers. Obviously millions of sites which are not based in China do not typically bother to register with MIIT. These sites will now be invisible in China. MIIT has already banned three companies from offering domain name services until they tighten up procedures. Assuming the scheme goes ahead it will effectively create a white list of websites deemed acceptable for Chinese citizens to visit. If you're not on the list, no Chinese resident is going to be able to see your website. Danwei.org has more details. The changes will also hit domestic Chinese websites which pre-date the registration requirements - they will now also need to register. --- -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Thu Dec 24 00:37:56 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:37:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <6B175272133C459497ABDF6270CE3C58@userPC> References: <26793748.88285.1261583026439.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <6B175272133C459497ABDF6270CE3C58@userPC> Message-ID: <20091224053935.71BCC90C4A@npogroups.org> To me major donor agencies have shifted their prime focus in other wings, not very specific to ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund accessible to developing economies? It will be great to learn about links providing information on them. Thanking you, Hakik At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >The issue is only partially one of lack of >funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many >cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D >(particularly now with ioncreasingly widespread >mobile and broadband infrastructures) either >through donor resources or from Universal >Services funds but there is an overall lack of >knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this >money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. > >Doing the assessments, building the knowledge >bases, bringing together those with the >experience as developers and end users, >developing the multistakeholder issue oriented >dialogues and networks is the role that is >currently lacking and has been lacking since >WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do >some of this but they didn't, the IGF >dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the >waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in >current speak non-multistakeholder...) > >So where to go from here... > >Best to all for the season! > >M >-----Original Message----- >From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] >Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake >Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > >Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all > >I think there is also another issue to be dealt >with very urgently : financing the ICT4D >projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan >objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of >WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". > >The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by >setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a >"Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the >beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. > >During the the last (or better : the "first") >WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't >recieve any support from the CS side (except >from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I >submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for >this demand to be taken in consideration, in >June after recovering from my heart attack. I >was told by a person of ITU to present this >proposal as a contribution to the September >meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, >whose topic was precisely the financing >mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I >couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised >me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. > >As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the >halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the >WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this >opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. > >With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a >happy and peaceful New Year to all of you > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , > "Michael Gurstein" , > "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > > > Hello > > > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > > the Plenipot discussion...? > > > > Bill > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > e> wrote: > > > > > Dear list > > > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > > > Any proposal? > > > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 24 01:26:06 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:26:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <20091224053933.A087D9076A@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Hakik, The Universal Service Funds I was referring to were national funds, often set up at the time of privatization of PTT's. These funds retain a small percentage of overall telecommunications revenues in national funds generally to be used to ensure "universal (telecom) service" in otherwise un-serviced areas. M -----Original Message----- From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:38 PM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID To me major donor agencies have shifted their prime focus in other wings, not very specific to ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund accessible to developing economies? It will be great to learn about links providing information on them. Thanking you, Hakik At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: The issue is only partially one of lack of funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly widespread mobile and broadband infrastructures) either through donor resources or from Universal Services funds but there is an overall lack of knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. Doing the assessments, building the knowledge bases, bringing together those with the experience as developers and end users, developing the multistakeholder issue oriented dialogues and networks is the role that is currently lacking and has been lacking since WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do some of this but they didn't, the IGF dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in current speak non-multistakeholder...) So where to go from here... Best to all for the season! M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [ mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr ] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all I think there is also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Hello > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > e> wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > 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 !DSPAM:2676,4b32fe9d177552119112493! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Thu Dec 24 06:10:57 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:40:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT ] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B334C41.2010206@itforchange.net> ahhh .... Rui, you caught the hegemonic bias for the north .... while it is winter solstice in the northern hemisphere it is the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere and the longest day and shortest night! Merry X Mas everyone!!! regards Guru Rui Correia wrote: > Hi Yehuda > > Just a small observation - "the earth’s axial tilt puts it the > fartherest from the sun", should read "the earth’s axial tilt puts THE > NORTH POLE the farthest from the sun". (Conversely, the South Pole > will reach its closest point to the sun. > > Rui > > 2009/12/21 Yehuda Katz : > >> Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT] >> >> The official winter solstice will take place at 12:47 pm [EST USA] (1747 GMT) >> when at that exact moment, the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from >> the sun. >> >> Tonight will be the shortest day of the year, followed by the longest night of >> the year, meaning that it will be getting darker earlier tonight and getting >> lighter later than normal tomorrow morning. >> >> You may experience a slight discomfort - Buckle your seatbelt and Hold On ! >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 cafonso.ca Thu Dec 24 09:38:07 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:38:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT ] In-Reply-To: <4B334C41.2010206@itforchange.net> References: <4B334C41.2010206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B337CCF.7060305@cafonso.ca> While I try to feel the balance of the planetary axis, and after a couple of glasses of a good red wine I try to feel like Kepler did about four centuries ago, I wish you all a wonderful 2010! Yes, and for the crusaders and their sympathizers, Merry Christmas as well! :) fraternal regards --c.a. Guru गुरु wrote: > ahhh .... Rui, you caught the hegemonic bias for the north .... while > it is winter solstice in the northern hemisphere it is the summer > solstice in the southern hemisphere and the longest day and shortest night! > > Merry X Mas everyone!!! > > regards > Guru > > > Rui Correia wrote: >> Hi Yehuda >> >> Just a small observation - "the earth’s axial tilt puts it the >> fartherest from the sun", should read "the earth’s axial tilt puts THE >> NORTH POLE the farthest from the sun". (Conversely, the South Pole >> will reach its closest point to the sun. >> >> Rui >> >> 2009/12/21 Yehuda Katz : >> >>> Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT] >>> >>> The official winter solstice will take place at 12:47 pm [EST USA] (1747 GMT) >>> when at that exact moment, the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from >>> the sun. >>> >>> Tonight will be the shortest day of the year, followed by the longest night of >>> the year, meaning that it will be getting darker earlier tonight and getting >>> lighter later than normal tomorrow morning. >>> >>> You may experience a slight discomfort - Buckle your seatbelt and Hold On ! >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Dec 24 09:45:47 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:45:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT ] In-Reply-To: <4B337CCF.7060305@cafonso.ca> References: <4B334C41.2010206@itforchange.net> <4B337CCF.7060305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Just don't fall off the edge! I' mean it is round, sins around an axis, but so is a vinyl LP - you can still go off the edge after a few too many of those glasses of red wine. A merry time I wish you all, full of peace and happiness, with lots of friends and family around you - to do the pouring and help you up should you need a hand or two ..... Abraços, Rui 2009/12/24 Carlos A. Afonso : > While I try to feel the balance of the planetary axis, and after a > couple of glasses of a good red wine I try to feel like Kepler did about > four centuries ago, I wish you all a wonderful 2010! > > Yes, and for the crusaders and their sympathizers, Merry Christmas as > well! :) > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Guru गुरु wrote: >> ahhh .... Rui, you caught  the hegemonic bias for the north .... while >> it is winter solstice in the northern hemisphere it is the summer >> solstice in the southern hemisphere and the longest day and shortest night! >> >> Merry X Mas everyone!!! >> >> regards >> Guru >> >> >> Rui Correia wrote: >>> Hi Yehuda >>> >>> Just a small observation - "the earth’s axial tilt puts it the >>> fartherest from the sun", should read "the earth’s axial tilt puts THE >>> NORTH POLE the farthest from the sun". (Conversely, the South Pole >>> will reach its closest point to the sun. >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/12/21 Yehuda Katz : >>> >>>> Time to change direction [ @ 17:47 GMT] >>>> >>>> The official winter solstice will take place at 12:47 pm [EST USA] (1747 GMT) >>>> when at that exact moment, the earth’s axial tilt puts it the fartherest from >>>> the sun. >>>> >>>> Tonight will be the shortest day of the year, followed by the longest night of >>>> the year, meaning that it will be getting darker earlier tonight and getting >>>> lighter later than normal tomorrow morning. >>>> >>>> You may experience a slight discomfort - Buckle your seatbelt and Hold On ! >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 24 15:31:42 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:31:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Message-ID: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we might choose to put forward as a caucus. You can find the online version at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). Participation is voluntary and anonymous. I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be more than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in your response. Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur 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 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 24 15:46:09 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:16:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B33D311.6060004@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Dec 24 17:46:57 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:46:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it).  Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer.  If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010.  Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey.  I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 25 06:57:55 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:57:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 24-Dec-2009, at 10:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted > to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed > to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a > specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be > restricted to pre-defined answers. If you choose "other" then a text box to do that will magically appear. If your thoughts are too extensive for the text box, please post them to the list. > 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? > sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to > find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in > general apart from the IGF structure. They are just my opinions. You can feel free to ignore them. They are just intended to clarify the questions but they are not part of the questions. > 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of > MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't > representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual > consensus to the IGF secretariat. Please raise any additional issues here. The survey is just a tool, but not meant to replace list discussion. > Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the > process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for > renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three > member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups > than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures > after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then > forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General > to select However, arguably this works better for governments - whose every nomination is accepted - and less well for civil society. If you want to be considered at all, you have to go through the IGC or ISOC, and even then not all such nominations are accepted. What criteria are used to decide which are accepted and which rejected? We don't know. So, in answering the survey, you might decide that a more open, transparent and democratic process would be a good idea. Or you might decide the current "black box" process works just fine. > Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating > multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests > of that multistakeholder group. I agree. That's not how it is at present. The option "represent their stakeholder group" in the survey covers this (or if you think it doesn't, choose "Other" and write your preferred wording). > These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should > first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey > to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few > weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC > statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed > amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that > we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which > you had also extensively contributed. It will be based on discussions on this list too; the raw output from the survey will not be sent outside the IGC. However, it is a more efficient way to get a broad outline of the group's views. Until now, nobody had responded to the 20 questions I had posted to the list. Now, we are well on the way to getting a good number of responses. :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 25 09:23:17 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:23:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: >Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > >As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an >online version of the survey that I posted to >the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF >that we might choose to put forward as a caucus. > >You can find the online version >at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I >aimed to put it up at >igcaucus.org, but technical >constraints prohibited it).  Participation is >voluntary and anonymous. Some of your descriptions of the present situation are not accurate. e.g. At present the MAG is chaired by a nominee of the Secretariat, currently Nitin Desai. Desai is the SG's representative and appointed by him. MAG mailing lists are anonymized digests of the MAG list not summaries. I think there have been one or two occasions when list members have requested some discussion not included in the digest, but I believe only when names of individuals were discussed. There's more, but these examples from the page I'm on. Best wishes to all. Adam >I have simplified it from the original version >that I sent by email in that you no longer need >to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be >as pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for >some questions, there may be more than one >answer you would be satisfied with - in that >case just choose the best answer.  If no answers >are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in >your response. > >Please complete your response by 10 January >2010.  Following that, I will work with Ginger >to produce a draft statement based on any >consensus that emerges from the survey.  I will >post this to the list, and after a discussion >period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > >Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > >-- > >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur 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 > >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the >global consumer movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >promote and protect consumer rights around the >world.  >http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > >Read >our email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >unless necessary. > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 25 11:16:15 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:16:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <8079AC68-5AE5-4E45-9104-50348C23F7B9@acm.org> On 24 Dec 2009, at 15:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we might choose to put forward as a caucus. > As stated by a few others, and this is the case for most all surveys not prepared scientifically, this one does seem to show the prejudices of its author. But I agree that it might be an interesting place to start a discussion. I just hope that the IGC gets to a well considered position in the end as opposed to one based on those prejudices. And from what i have seen of the IGC in the past, i think a well considered position is most likely - so I am not too worried about the caucus making a fool of itself in the end. Plus in the tradition of IGC coordinators, I am sure that we will see strict neutrality in the coordinator's behavior. I am wondering, in the light of continuing ITU aspirations for a leading role in critical Internet resources and their alleged willingness to at least consider become slightly multistakeholder in orientation - as opposed to being a purely government dominated body - should we be working on a dual strategy that includes involvement with the ITU? i know they haven't asked for civil society comment or involvement on their big plans for 2010, but perhaps we should be offering it anyway. We, as the members of the IGC, have lots of comments about the two structures that have given civil society a voice, and this is how it should be - the IGC should be vocal and active in the IGF and in ICANN - especially in the policy processes and the AoC reviews. But we must also become vocal on those who do not give civil society a voice, like the ITU, otherwise we may end up being treated like civil society is treated in the global warming issue - outside the doors and under arrest. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Dec 25 12:10:14 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:10:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Aw: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: 8079AC68-5AE5-4E45-9104-50348C23F7B9@acm.org Message-ID: I like Avri's suggestionsof tactical-approach in balanceing the Ying with the Yang. [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00278.html ] I to, also feel this Survey is a good start. My only wish is that: Once a Month (12 time a year) the list has a chance to "ask" a survey question (One per Month per member - optional). In that Jeremy, we can all Float our Notion-of-the-Month, and bounce it off the Members here for Feedback in terms of a Quantitative Survey Results . This way the List can be aware (Fluid) of what is in the Scope of our Researcher's minds. (Researcher's = Active Members, you guys know who you are). And encourage Member whom share a simulare interest to contribute or even collaborate. I assume we are all working on some aspect of 'Internet [K] Intrest,' or we wouldn't be here. For example, I enjoy the Post of Wolfgang Kleinwächter, as well William Drake, and Michael Gurstein when they brings us news about the Political motivation of the ITU, I also enjoy it when Avri brings us new from inside Icann's WGs. Occasional Work Group input is important to. I was amazed by the South American Team this year, they were very well 'represented and presented' in postions under the scope of the IGF. What I'm getting at, is that I feel each of us can get a stronger understanding of our *Individual Research Needs*, if we have a periodic survey for Feedback, on whatever aspect it is we are trying to discover. (no matter of how ridiculous it is) This will strengthen our understanding as a Group (IGC - CPSR Mail List Group), because we'll have an understanding of Ourselves (Good or Bad, Cohesive or UnCohesive). As they say: Two eyes are better than One. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Dec 26 01:40:24 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:40:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: References: <20091224053933.A087D9076A@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <20091226064123.0B43390A39@npogroups.org> Dear Michael, Happy Holidays! Yes, at this point I would agree that many developing nations are clearly out of focus in spending for this sort of 'service area' (which directly or indirectly relates to ICT4D), as you have mentioned. Perhaps, lack of knowledge/expertise at the both levels, policy initiators and practitioners. Any thoughts or action plans in diminishing these gaps! Best regards, Hakik At 06:26 AM 12/24/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Hakik, > >The Universal Service Funds I was referring to >were national funds, often set up at the time of >privatization of PTT's. These funds retain a >small percentage of overall telecommunications >revenues in national funds generally to be used >to ensure "universal (telecom) service" in otherwise un-serviced areas. > >M >-----Original Message----- >From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] >Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:38 PM >To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' >Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > >To me major donor agencies have shifted their >prime focus in other wings, not very specific to >ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund >accessible to developing economies? It will be >great to learn about links providing information on them. > >Thanking you, >Hakik > > >At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>The issue is only partially one of lack of >>funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many >>cases/places there are funds available for >>ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly >>widespread mobile and broadband >>infrastructures) either through donor resources >>or from Universal Services funds but there is >>an overall lack of >>knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this >>money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. >> >>Doing the assessments, building the knowledge >>bases, bringing together those with the >>experience as developers and end users, >>developing the multistakeholder issue oriented >>dialogues and networks is the role that is >>currently lacking and has been lacking since >>WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do >>some of this but they didn't, the IGF >>dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the >>waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in >>current speak non-multistakeholder...) >> >>So where to go from here... >> >>Best to all for the season! >> >>M >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [ mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake >>Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >>Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all >>I think there is also another issue to be dealt >>with very urgently : financing the ICT4D >>projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action >>Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot >>potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and >>financing for "bridging the digital divide". >>The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by >>setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for >>a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the >>beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. >>During the the last (or better : the "first") >>WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't >>recieve any support from the CS side (except >>from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I >>submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for >>this demand to be taken in consideration, in >>June after recovering from my heart attack. I >>was told by a person of ITU to present this >>proposal as a contribution to the September >>meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, >>whose topic was precisely the financing >>mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I >>couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having >>advised me against, for medical reasons. That's >>why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. >> >>As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the >>halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the >>WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this >>opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. >>With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a >>happy and peaceful New Year to all of you >>Jean-Louis Fullsack >> > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 >> > De : "William Drake" >> > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , >> "Michael Gurstein" , >> "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> > >> > >> > Hello >> > >> > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and >> > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to >> > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and >> > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs >> > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we >> > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) >> > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's >> > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept >> > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a >> > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have >> > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF >> > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into >> > the Plenipot discussion...? >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > >> > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> > e> wrote: >> > >> > > Dear list >> > > >> > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a >> > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in >> > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, >> > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in >> > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant >> > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no >> > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and >> > > Sarbulan was online from NY. >> > > >> > > Any proposal? >> > > >> > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from >> > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could >> > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so >> > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other >> > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum >> > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to >> > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could >> > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way >> > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. >> > > >> > > 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 >!DSPAM:2676,4b32fe9d177552119112493! > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 26 12:16:19 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:16:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <20091226064121.742FC907A0@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <56067B26343B4F6E9766B1CB6A60D66F@userPC> And to you Hakik.. Yes, Universal Service Funds have not been well spent in many instances... Lots of reasons for that... the original legislation/policies, often established under the direction or influence of folks like the World Bank or USAID, were frequently seriously flawed and much too stipulative i.e. were directed for example, towards extension of fixed line telephone service (most were established 10-15 years ago) in terms of technology infrastructure rather than normative in terms of standard/outcome setting... Few seem to have effective research or evaluation components and little real understanding of the impact of (univerally serviced) ICT on Development...and so on. I'ld be very willing to pursue this discussion with you or any others interested but its probably a bit of a deviation for the current areas of concern on the governance list so maybe it should be taken off-line for any folks with an interest... Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 10:40 PM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Dear Michael, Happy Holidays! Yes, at this point I would agree that many developing nations are clearly out of focus in spending for this sort of 'service area' (which directly or indirectly relates to ICT4D), as you have mentioned. Perhaps, lack of knowledge/expertise at the both levels, policy initiators and practitioners. Any thoughts or action plans in diminishing these gaps! Best regards, Hakik At 06:26 AM 12/24/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: Hakik, The Universal Service Funds I was referring to were national funds, often set up at the time of privatization of PTT's. These funds retain a small percentage of overall telecommunications revenues in national funds generally to be used to ensure "universal (telecom) service" in otherwise un-serviced areas. M -----Original Message----- From: Hakikur Rahman [ mailto:email at hakik.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:38 PM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID To me major donor agencies have shifted their prime focus in other wings, not very specific to ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund accessible to developing economies? It will be great to learn about links providing information on them. Thanking you, Hakik At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: The issue is only partially one of lack of funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly widespread mobile and broadband infrastructures) either through donor resources or from Universal Services funds but there is an overall lack of knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. Doing the assessments, building the knowledge bases, bringing together those with the experience as developers and end users, developing the multistakeholder issue oriented dialogues and networks is the role that is currently lacking and has been lacking since WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do some of this but they didn't, the IGF dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in current speak non-multistakeholder...) So where to go from here... Best to all for the season! M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [ mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all I think there is also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Hello > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > e> wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > 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 !DSPAM:2676,4b35b01a177555616417546! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 26 13:11:34 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'm puzzled about what this survey is trying to discover. On one hand it seems it wants you to give your aspirations for the future[1], but on the other hand it appears to ask questions in Quiz style[2]. With possible answers that include both fact (the a&b) with innuendo (the c). And is accompanied by partisan comments that often ask a different question to the one originally posed. eg: "How is the MAG selected" - sounds like a quiz, but the possible answers are more aspirational than historical. & "At present [...partisan view...] Is this the best option?" - which seems to require a Yes/No answer; but what if you don't agree that's the way its chosen today? [1] like: Where should the IGF be held in 2012: a) New York b) South America c) Where the secretariat decides [2] like: Where is the IGF being held in 2010: a) Azerbaijan b) Lithuania c) Somewhere the UN decided upon -- 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 vharris at ntia.doc.gov Sat Dec 26 15:46:56 2009 From: vharris at ntia.doc.gov (Vernita D. Harris) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:46:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Message-ID: <16B9F4D5FBF14F41A9710E755BEDAB255E9C99A0@NTIAMBX01.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> RyyuyasaSdsDgfxzxzxbvv00000000000b 0 ________________________________ From: Hakikur Rahman To: Michael Gurstein ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK' ; 'William Drake' Sent: Sat Dec 26 01:40:24 2009 Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Dear Michael, Happy Holidays! Yes, at this point I would agree that many developing nations are clearly out of focus in spending for this sort of 'service area' (which directly or indirectly relates to ICT4D), as you have mentioned. Perhaps, lack of knowledge/expertise at the both levels, policy initiators and practitioners. Any thoughts or action plans in diminishing these gaps! Best regards, Hakik At 06:26 AM 12/24/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: Hakik, The Universal Service Funds I was referring to were national funds, often set up at the time of privatization of PTT's. These funds retain a small percentage of overall telecommunications revenues in national funds generally to be used to ensure "universal (telecom) service" in otherwise un-serviced areas. M -----Original Message----- From: Hakikur Rahman [ mailto:email at hakik.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:38 PM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID To me major donor agencies have shifted their prime focus in other wings, not very specific to ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund accessible to developing economies? It will be great to learn about links providing information on them. Thanking you, Hakik At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: The issue is only partially one of lack of funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly widespread mobile and broadband infrastructures) either through donor resources or from Universal Services funds but there is an overall lack of knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. Doing the assessments, building the knowledge bases, bringing together those with the experience as developers and end users, developing the multistakeholder issue oriented dialogues and networks is the role that is currently lacking and has been lacking since WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do some of this but they didn't, the IGF dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in current speak non-multistakeholder...) So where to go from here... Best to all for the season! M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [ mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all I think there is also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for "bridging the digital divide". The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against, for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Hello > > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > e> wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > 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 !DSPAM:2676,4b32fe9d177552119112493! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 email at hakik.org Sat Dec 26 18:30:15 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:30:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <56067B26343B4F6E9766B1CB6A60D66F@userPC> References: <20091226064121.742FC907A0@npogroups.org> <56067B26343B4F6E9766B1CB6A60D66F@userPC> Message-ID: <20091226233053.CCC5E9059B@npogroups.org> Thank you Michael for your willingness on discussing this issue further. I will be sending you a few thoughts on this aspect soon, off-list. Best regards, Hakik At 05:16 PM 12/26/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >And to you Hakik.. > >Yes, Universal Service Funds have not been well >spent in many instances... Lots of reasons for >that... the original legislation/policies, often >established under the direction or influence of >folks like the World Bank or USAID, were >frequently seriously flawed and much too >stipulative i.e. were directed for example, >towards extension of fixed line telephone >service (most were established 10-15 years ago) >in terms of technology infrastructure rather >than normative in terms of standard/outcome >setting... Few seem to have effective research >or evaluation components and little real >understanding of the impact of (univerally >serviced) ICT on Development...and so on. > >I'ld be very willing to pursue this discussion >with you or any others interested but its >probably a bit of a deviation for the current >areas of concern on the governance list so maybe >it should be taken off-line for any folks with an interest... > >Best, > >Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] >Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 10:40 PM >To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' >Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > >Dear Michael, > >Happy Holidays! > >Yes, at this point I would agree that many >developing nations are clearly out of focus in >spending for this sort of 'service area' (which >directly or indirectly relates to ICT4D), as you >have mentioned. Perhaps, lack of >knowledge/expertise at the both levels, policy >initiators and practitioners. Any thoughts or >action plans in diminishing these gaps! > >Best regards, >Hakik > >At 06:26 AM 12/24/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>Hakik, >> >>The Universal Service Funds I was referring to >>were national funds, often set up at the time >>of privatization of PTT's. These funds retain >>a small percentage of overall >>telecommunications revenues in national funds >>generally to be used to ensure "universal >>(telecom) service" in otherwise un-serviced areas. >> >>M >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Hakikur Rahman [ mailto:email at hakik.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:38 PM >>To: Michael Gurstein; >>governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; 'William Drake' >>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >>To me major donor agencies have shifted their >>prime focus in other wings, not very specific >>to ICT4D. Are the Universal Services fund >>accessible to developing economies? It will be >>great to learn about links providing information on them. >>Thanking you, >>Hakik >> >>At 10:46 PM 12/23/2009, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>The issue is only partially one of lack of >>>funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in many >>>cases/places there are funds available for >>>ICT4D (particularly now with ioncreasingly >>>widespread mobile and broadband >>>infrastructures) either through donor >>>resources or from Universal Services funds but >>>there is an overall lack of >>>knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this >>>money in an appropriate and useful/effective way. >>> >>>Doing the assessments, building the knowledge >>>bases, bringing together those with the >>>experience as developers and end users, >>>developing the multistakeholder issue oriented >>>dialogues and networks is the role that is >>>currently lacking and has been lacking since >>>WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do >>>some of this but they didn't, the IGF >>>dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the >>>waters, the ITU is too clearly top-down (in >>>current speak non-multistakeholder...) >>> >>>So where to go from here... >>> >>>Best to all for the season! >>> >>>M >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [ mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:44 AM >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake >>>Subject: re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>> >>>Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all >>>I think there is also another issue to be >>>dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D >>>projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action >>>Plan objectives. Remember : the two "hot >>>potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and >>>financing for "bridging the digital divide". >>>The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by >>>setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for >>>a "Financing Mechanisms Forum (FMF)" since the >>>beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success. >>>During the the last (or better : the "first") >>>WSIS Forum held in May my proposal didn't >>>recieve any support from the CS side (except >>>from some African grassroot orgs). Therefore I >>>submitted a personal request to the ITU SG for >>>this demand to be taken in consideration, in >>>June after recovering from my heart attack. I >>>was told by a person of ITU to present this >>>proposal as a contribution to the September >>>meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU, >>>whose topic was precisely the financing >>>mechanisms for ICT4D. But unfortunately I >>>couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having >>>advised me against, for medical reasons. >>>That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending. >>>As Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the >>>halfway between Tunis and the deadline of the >>>WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of >>>this opportunity to push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. >>>With my best wishes for a merry Christmas and >>>a happy and peaceful New Year to all of you >>>Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> > Message du 23/12/09 15:31 >>> > De : "William Drake" >>> > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> > Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky" , >>> "Michael Gurstein" , >>> "tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>> > Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>> > >>> > >>> > Hello >>> > >>> > I understand George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and >>> > a bit cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to >>> > me it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and >>> > inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs >>> > were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we >>> > can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any) >>> > steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's >>> > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept >>> > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a >>> > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have >>> > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF >>> > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into >>> > the Plenipot discussion...? >>> > >>> > Bill >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone >>> > >>> > >>> > On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> > e> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Dear list >>> > > >>> > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a >>> > > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in >>> > > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, >>> > > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in >>> > > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant >>> > > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no >>> > > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and >>> > > Sarbulan was online from NY. >>> > > >>> > > Any proposal? >>> > > >>> > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from >>> > > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could >>> > > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so >>> > > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other >>> > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum >>> > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to >>> > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could >>> > > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way >>> > > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. >>> > > >>> > > 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 >!DSPAM:2676,4b35b01a177555616417546! > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Dec 27 07:27:59 2009 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <707984.95975.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy Malcolm,  It is my first time to communicate with you. First of all please accept my heartily congratulation on becoming coordinator. I am looking and reading different discussion regarding the IGF reformation of IGF and objections on the On-line Survey. Some of them may be are good suggestions with in the discussion and criticism.   But what I understand that your survey is going to be criticised to make it disputed and to declare that it has loose its importance at the end of the day. I suggest you to remain as strong as you are being reflected by replying following answers. You may declare to the members list that once we obtain the survey results, we will continue discussion on it to finalise the opinions, and if found necessary may conduct next step of the survey.   Do not change the moto and theme of your initiative which you have taken. {You can just make some minor corrections into the questions for example if one member has objection on ....."How is the MAG selected",instead of changing the basic theme of your question as per her advise, just make the necessary changes like this "How should the MAG selected".  (only replace "is" with "should").}   By the may I ask one question, what the MAG is looking for? or Why MAG is chasing to reform the IGF? This job of the reformation of the IGF should be initiate through the founders of the IGF, who wasthe Secretary-General of the United Nations. Advisory Group which is known ad MAG now. has to follow the given the mandate of United Nations instead of starting reformation of the IGF. Please guide me.   Thanking you and Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah [ICANNians since Seoul 36th ICANN Meeting] [+92-300-4130617] ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Fouad Bajwa Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Ginger Paque Sent: Fri, 25 December, 2009 15:57:55 Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF On 24-Dec-2009, at 10:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted > to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed > to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a > specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be > restricted to pre-defined answers. If you choose "other" then a text box to do that will magically appear. If your thoughts are too extensive for the text box, please post them to the list. > 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? > sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to > find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in > general apart from the IGF structure. They are just my opinions. You can feel free to ignore them. They are just intended to clarify the questions but they are not part of the questions. > 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of > MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't > representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual > consensus to the IGF secretariat. Please raise any additional issues here. The survey is just a tool, but not meant to replace list discussion. > Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the > process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for > renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three > member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups > than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures > after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then > forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General > to select However, arguably this works better for governments - whose every nomination is accepted - and less well for civil society. If you want to be considered at all, you have to go through the IGC or ISOC, and even then not all such nominations are accepted. What criteria are used to decide which are accepted and which rejected? We don't know. So, in answering the survey, you might decide that a more open, transparent and democratic process would be a good idea. Or you might decide the current "black box" process works just fine. > Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating > multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests > of that multistakeholder group. I agree. That's not how it is at present. The option "represent their stakeholder group" in the survey covers this (or if you think it doesn't, choose "Other" and write your preferred wording). > These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should > first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey > to reflect our thoughts for devising statements.  In the last few > weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC > statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed > amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that > we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which > you had also extensively contributed. It will be based on discussions on this list too; the raw output from the survey will not be sent outside the IGC. However, it is a more efficient way to get a broad outline of the group's views. Until now, nobody had responded to the 20 questions I had posted to the list. Now, we are well on the way to getting a good number of responses. :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Dec 27 08:47:59 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:47:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> Hi Wolfgang, Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. Great 2010 for all of you! Best cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Dear list one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. Any proposal? BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Dec 28 04:00:23 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:00:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three times a year Composition : The president of ICANN 2 represntatives of Europe 2 represntatives of Africa 2 representatives of North America 2 representatives of South America 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. End of the proposal. Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > De : "Vanda UOL" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Hi Wolfgang,  Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting!  I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree.  2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. Great 2010 for all of you!  Best   Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br     -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID   Dear list   one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY.   Any proposal?     BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments.   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 > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 28 04:20:05 2009 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:20:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: <976828.51202.qm@web113512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >From the point of heterogeneity of the the Asiuan Continent, I should like to suggest one representative each from the following: China - 1; India- 1; 3 other representatives from the rest of the region. Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Reliance Advisor No.20095240;  Tel: 91-821-2342612; Mob: 094818 14418. Visiting Professor, JSS University, Mysore; Life Member, MCC & Industries/APFS/AMI/NSI/AFST(I)/ISTD,etc. --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda UOL" , "'"Kleinwächter Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 2:30 PM Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three times a year Composition : The president of ICANN 2 represntatives of Europe 2 represntatives of Africa 2 representatives of North America 2 representatives of South America 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. End of the proposal. Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > De : "Vanda UOL" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Hi Wolfgang,  Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting!  I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree.  2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. Great 2010 for all of you!  Best   Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br     -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID   Dear list   one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY.   Any proposal?     BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments.   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 > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] -----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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Mon Dec 28 04:36:50 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:36:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Off-topic: But highly appreciate any help! Message-ID: <20091228093737.A688A90228@npogroups.org> Dear Colleagues and Friends: Like to share a very sad news with you. As I was leaving Barcelona on the way to Portugal, three snatchers took my Laptop bag that includes my laptop, my camera and some more belongings. The most depressing thing on my part that some of the document folders were not being backed up for over a year, especially many portion of my current post-doc research, and final version of my edited book manuscripts. It happened around 6:15AM on December 27th at the bus station of Barcelona north stop. Just as a matter of curiosity, anyone from this list can assist me in anyway reaching any proper authority to expedite anything positive! I have reported a police complain, though, but my heart is aching. Appreciating your kind assistance, Hakikur Rahman Prof. Hakikur Rahman Post-Doc Researcher University of Minho, Portugal ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cafonso.ca Mon Dec 28 08:13:55 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:13:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> One of the hurdles of building this "G12" (for one, it should probably be called "GXY" for now) is the regional distribution in representation. I think it raises a lot of problems bundling together Mexico with the USA in the "North America" representation -- and where do you fit the Caribbean? So each region has its particularities and this group, if it really is to go ahead, needs a lot of careful debate to arrive at something which is not "defective by design" or just worthless. I think Reding needs to mingle a bit more with the people in the different regions before suggesting structures like this. Also, not sure if including Icann would not require including other international entities closely related to one or more central items of IG, which I think are at least as relevant as Icann's. --c.a. Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? > > You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : > > Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three > times a year > Composition : > The president of ICANN > 2 represntatives of Europe > 2 represntatives of Africa > 2 representatives of North America > 2 representatives of South America > 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region > This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and > should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the > majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. > End of the proposal. > > Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the > ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her > successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? > BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > > De : "Vanda UOL" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , > "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , > tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Copie à : > > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around > here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! > > I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS > forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to > organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half > time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to > achieve till 2015. > > Great 2010 for all of you! > > Best > > > > */Vanda Scartezini/**//* > > */Polo Consultores Associados/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 #1407/* > > */Tel - +55.11.3266.6253/* > > */Mob- +55.11.8181.1464/* > > */vanda at uol.com.br /* > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; > tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > 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 > > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 28 08:16:45 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:16:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org>,<701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF395@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy, Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before you ask lots of people to complete it. My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 28 09:33:37 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:33:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Off-topic: But highly appreciate any help! In-Reply-To: <20091228093741.852B0902A1@npogroups.org> References: <20091228093741.852B0902A1@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Hi Hakikur I can only say I am sorry to hear about all your hard work! Can the University of Minho perhaps liaise with colleagues in Barcelona to stay in touch with the police and put some pressure? I do hope they recover your laptop with all your files! Best regards, Rui 2009/12/28 Hakikur Rahman : > Dear Colleagues and Friends: > > Like to share a very sad news with you. As I was leaving Barcelona on the > way to Portugal, three snatchers took my Laptop bag that includes my laptop, > my camera and some more belongings. The most depressing thing on my part > that some of the document folders were not being backed up for over a year, > especially many portion of my current post-doc research, and final version > of my edited book manuscripts. > > It happened around 6:15AM on December 27th at the bus station of Barcelona > north stop. > > Just as a matter of curiosity, anyone from this list can assist me in anyway > reaching any proper authority to expedite anything positive! I have reported > a police complain, though, but my heart is aching. > > Appreciating your kind assistance, > Hakikur Rahman > > Prof. Hakikur Rahman > Post-Doc Researcher > University of Minho, Portugal > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 10:24:06 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:24:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: <1C660C72BB904AF98BC928110C96C7E8@userPC> Things have gone a wee bit awry here I think, with crosspostings without enough background... To clarify a bit--a second e-list (tt-group... sorry can't remember right now why that particular name) was established almost 18 months ago from within those formally involved in the governance structure of the Global Alliance for ICT for Development (UN-GAID) www.un-gaid.org/ who were critical of the way in which the GAID was operating and to suggest alternatives. (There is a substantial cross-membership between the governance list and the tt-group list). The tt-group list produced a letter which was formally transmitted to the leaders and sponsors of the GAID to little visible effect. Recently, the tt-group elist was brought out of hibernation and is currently discussing if or how to react to retirement of the current ED of the GAID (Sarbuland Khan) and what appears to be a move to "mainstream" (i.e. in UN speak merge and then "disappear") the GAID as an independent UN structure. I think it is fair to say that the folks on the TT-group list (who are linked by all having a serious interest in post-WSIS ICT4D policy at the global and bi-lateral institutional level) do NOT see a convergence between the current issues of the IGF and ICT4D activities or policies. So it is likely to be rather more efficient and effective if the discussions on the two lists are kept relatively separate. However, it is likely a further consensus that the discussions (and participants) on the TT-group list should expand much beyond a focus on the GAID so anyone on the "governance" list who has an interest in the tt-group's discussion could subscribe by sending an email to: sympa at vancouvercommunity.net message: subscribe tt-group (or sending me an email and I'll sub you directly. Best to all, M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda UOL; '"Kleinwächter Wolfgang"'; 'Tim Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three times a year Composition : The president of ICANN 2 represntatives of Europe 2 represntatives of Africa 2 representatives of North America 2 representatives of South America 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. End of the proposal. Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > De : "Vanda UOL" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Hi Wolfgang, Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. Great 2010 for all of you! Best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Dear list one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. Any proposal? BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. 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 > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Dec 28 10:52:47 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:52:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <1C660C72BB904AF98BC928110C96C7E8@userPC> References: <1C660C72BB904AF98BC928110C96C7E8@userPC> Message-ID: <142C681E-1C03-478D-8532-9794882EA105@psg.com> hi, does the TT list have an open archive? Re; the G12 (and even the GXY variant) suggestion - great idea if and only if we wish to vest Internet supremacy in the hands of governments to the exclusion of civil society, the Internet technical community and the private sector. Then again they may be nice enough to let us have a liaison in the room who can, if she/he asks politely and submits it to vetting, make a statement at the end of the deliberations. a. On 28 Dec 2009, at 10:24, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Things have gone a wee bit awry here I think, with crosspostings without enough background... > > To clarify a bit--a second e-list (tt-group... sorry can't remember right now why that particular name) was established almost 18 months ago from within those formally involved in the governance structure of the Global Alliance for ICT for Development (UN-GAID) www.un-gaid.org/ who were critical of the way in which the GAID was operating and to suggest alternatives. (There is a substantial cross-membership between the governance list and the tt-group list). > > The tt-group list produced a letter which was formally transmitted to the leaders and sponsors of the GAID to little visible effect. Recently, the tt-group elist was brought out of hibernation and is currently discussing if or how to react to retirement of the current ED of the GAID (Sarbuland Khan) and what appears to be a move to "mainstream" (i.e. in UN speak merge and then "disappear") the GAID as an independent UN structure. > > I think it is fair to say that the folks on the TT-group list (who are linked by all having a serious interest in post-WSIS ICT4D policy at the global and bi-lateral institutional level) do NOT see a convergence between the current issues of the IGF and ICT4D activities or policies. > > So it is likely to be rather more efficient and effective if the discussions on the two lists are kept relatively separate. > > However, it is likely a further consensus that the discussions (and participants) on the TT-group list should expand much beyond a focus on the GAID so anyone on the "governance" list who has an interest in the tt-group's discussion could subscribe by sending an email > > to: sympa at vancouvercommunity.net > > message: subscribe tt-group > > (or sending me an email and I'll sub you directly. > > Best to all, > > M > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda UOL; '"Kleinwächter Wolfgang"'; 'Tim Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Subject: RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? > > You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : > > Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three times a year > Composition : > The president of ICANN > 2 represntatives of Europe > 2 represntatives of Africa > 2 representatives of North America > 2 representatives of South America > 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region > This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. > End of the proposal. > > Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? > BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > > De : "Vanda UOL" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Copie à : > > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! > I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. > Great 2010 for all of you! > Best > > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 > Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 > Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 > vanda at uol.com.br > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Dear list > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. > > Any proposal? > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > 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 > > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 28 11:20:08 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:20:08 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Be careful in mixing IGF/MAG and ICT4D/GAID. This are two different shoes walking in different directions. ICT4D/GAID can learn something from IGF/MAG and we can the positive IGF/MAG experiences as a source of inspiration for the reform of ICT4D/GAID towards multistakeholderism. But do not try to put the two processes under one umbrella. This seems risky even if some groups think this is a good idea. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Gesendet: Mo 28.12.2009 14:13 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK Cc: Vanda UOL; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Tim Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Betreff: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID One of the hurdles of building this "G12" (for one, it should probably be called "GXY" for now) is the regional distribution in representation. I think it raises a lot of problems bundling together Mexico with the USA in the "North America" representation -- and where do you fit the Caribbean? So each region has its particularities and this group, if it really is to go ahead, needs a lot of careful debate to arrive at something which is not "defective by design" or just worthless. I think Reding needs to mingle a bit more with the people in the different regions before suggesting structures like this. Also, not sure if including Icann would not require including other international entities closely related to one or more central items of IG, which I think are at least as relevant as Icann's. --c.a. Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? > > You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : > > Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three > times a year > Composition : > The president of ICANN > 2 represntatives of Europe > 2 represntatives of Africa > 2 representatives of North America > 2 representatives of South America > 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region > This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and > should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the > majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. > End of the proposal. > > Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the > ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her > successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? > BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > > De : "Vanda UOL" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , > "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , > tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Copie à : > > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around > here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! > > I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS > forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to > organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half > time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to > achieve till 2015. > > Great 2010 for all of you! > > Best > > > > */Vanda Scartezini/**//* > > */Polo Consultores Associados/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 #1407/* > > */Tel - +55.11.3266.6253/* > > */Mob- +55.11.8181.1464/* > > */vanda at uol.com.br /* > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; > tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > Dear list > > > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in > February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in > Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant > Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no > consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and > Sarbulan was online from NY. > > > > Any proposal? > > > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way > towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > > > 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 > > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 28 11:29:47 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:59:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <142C681E-1C03-478D-8532-9794882EA105@psg.com> References: <1C660C72BB904AF98BC928110C96C7E8@userPC> <142C681E-1C03-478D-8532-9794882EA105@psg.com> Message-ID: <4B38DCFB.6020809@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > does the TT list have an open archive? > > Re; the G12 (and even the GXY variant) suggestion - great idea if and only if we wish to vest Internet supremacy in the hands of governments to the exclusion of civil society, the Internet technical community and the private sector. > > Then again they may be nice enough to let us have a liaison in the room who can, if she/he asks politely and submits it to vetting, make a statement at the end of the deliberations. > > a. > Avri While completely appreciating your concerns I will restate some questions I have repeatedly raised on this list. Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? If it is the former, I consider lack of belief in political systems as legitimizing the rule of the powerful over the weaker sections, and is thus an unacceptable position. If the later, it surprises me no end that why does civil society engaged in IG arena never provide or even support possible alternatives of more democratic governance/ policy options? I have repeatedly spoken of alternatives developed by WGIG (other than the alternative 2 which was basically status quo and which does not really address the policy vacuums) as a possible starting point, but found no response. Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that any effort to propose any policy role, even an advisory one, for the IGF, the only really multi-stakeholder global policy forum, is met with similar resistance by those who resist other policy options. What exactly is to be made of this? Do we really not need any global policies in an increasingly globalised world, most so in regard to Internet related issues - which keep becoming bigger and more pervasive? If we need them, who should make them? And what are the transitional mechanisms towards these ideal propositions? 'No policies' is a generally recognized position of the already dominant, while the weaker sections always look for political systems or policies to intervene on their behalf. I also consider this debate relevant to the question of the role and structure of IGF which we are discussing on this list. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Dec 28 11:52:27 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:52:27 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B38E24B.5090407@cafonso.ca> I agree, Wolf. --c.a. Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Be careful in mixing IGF/MAG and ICT4D/GAID. This are two different shoes walking in different directions. ICT4D/GAID can learn something from IGF/MAG and we can the positive IGF/MAG experiences as a source of inspiration for the reform of ICT4D/GAID towards multistakeholderism. But do not try to put the two processes under one umbrella. This seems risky even if some groups think this is a good idea. > > Wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Gesendet: Mo 28.12.2009 14:13 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Cc: Vanda UOL; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Tim Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > One of the hurdles of building this "G12" (for one, it should probably > be called "GXY" for now) is the regional distribution in representation. > I think it raises a lot of problems bundling together Mexico with the > USA in the "North America" representation -- and where do you fit the > Caribbean? So each region has its particularities and this group, if it > really is to go ahead, needs a lot of careful debate to arrive at > something which is not "defective by design" or just worthless. I think > Reding needs to mingle a bit more with the people in the different > regions before suggesting structures like this. > > Also, not sure if including Icann would not require including other > international entities closely related to one or more central items of > IG, which I think are at least as relevant as Icann's. > > --c.a. > > Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? >> >> You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : >> >> Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three >> times a year >> Composition : >> The president of ICANN >> 2 represntatives of Europe >> 2 represntatives of Africa >> 2 representatives of North America >> 2 representatives of South America >> 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region >> This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and >> should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the >> majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. >> End of the proposal. >> >> Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the >> ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her >> successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? >> BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... >> >> Best >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 >> > De : "Vanda UOL" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , >> "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , >> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> > >> > >> >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around >> here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! >> >> I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS >> forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to >> organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half >> time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to >> achieve till 2015. >> >> Great 2010 for all of you! >> >> Best >> >> >> >> */Vanda Scartezini/**//* >> >> */Polo Consultores Associados/* >> >> */Alameda Santos 1470 #1407/* >> >> */Tel - +55.11.3266.6253/* >> >> */Mob- +55.11.8181.1464/* >> >> */vanda at uol.com.br /* >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM >> > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; >> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >> >> >> Dear list >> >> >> >> one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a >> reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in >> February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, >> 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in >> Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant >> Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no >> consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and >> Sarbulan was online from NY. >> >> >> >> Any proposal? >> >> >> >> BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from >> the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could >> absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so >> far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other >> IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum >> could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to >> organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could >> go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way >> towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] >> > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Dec 28 12:02:02 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:02:02 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <4B38E24B.5090407@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B38E24B.5090407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <9D1E1AA9-3797-40D8-A558-25716152DA64@datos-personales.org> Agree. BTW, Asia Pacific is a tricky term too. I am not sure if they are referring to APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum). In any case, members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum are: Chile, Peru, Mexico. Some countries in Latin America have its cost in the Asia Pacific (not Brazil)... which is sad when we issues regarding Intellectual Property Rights are discussed within the APEC Framework. (Usually Brazil brings a more progressive point of view in the negotiations). The same happen in Privacy. Usually lead by United States, Australia, Canada... All the best, Katitza On Dec 28, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree, Wolf. > > --c.a. > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> Be careful in mixing IGF/MAG and ICT4D/GAID. This are two different >> shoes walking in different directions. ICT4D/GAID can learn >> something from IGF/MAG and we can the positive IGF/MAG experiences >> as a source of inspiration for the reform of ICT4D/GAID towards >> multistakeholderism. But do not try to put the two processes under >> one umbrella. This seems risky even if some groups think this is a >> good idea. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Gesendet: Mo 28.12.2009 14:13 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> Cc: Vanda UOL; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Tim Unwin'; 'George >> Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >> >> >> One of the hurdles of building this "G12" (for one, it should >> probably >> be called "GXY" for now) is the regional distribution in >> representation. >> I think it raises a lot of problems bundling together Mexico with the >> USA in the "North America" representation -- and where do you fit the >> Caribbean? So each region has its particularities and this group, >> if it >> really is to go ahead, needs a lot of careful debate to arrive at >> something which is not "defective by design" or just worthless. I >> think >> Reding needs to mingle a bit more with the people in the different >> regions before suggesting structures like this. >> >> Also, not sure if including Icann would not require including other >> international entities closely related to one or more central items >> of >> IG, which I think are at least as relevant as Icann's. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>> Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in >>> May ? >>> >>> You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : >>> >>> Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened >>> three >>> times a year >>> Composition : >>> The president of ICANN >>> 2 represntatives of Europe >>> 2 represntatives of Africa >>> 2 representatives of North America >>> 2 representatives of South America >>> 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region >>> This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and >>> should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on >>> by the >>> majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. >>> End of the proposal. >>> >>> Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced >>> as the >>> ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her >>> successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric >>> suggestions ? >>> BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... >>> >>> Best >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >>> >>> >>>> Message du 27/12/09 14:48 >>>> De : "Vanda UOL" >>>> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , >>> "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , >>> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> Copie à : >>>> Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! >>> Around >>> here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! >>> >>> I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS >>> forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to >>> organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half >>> time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to >>> achieve till 2015. >>> >>> Great 2010 for all of you! >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> */Vanda Scartezini/**//* >>> >>> */Polo Consultores Associados/* >>> >>> */Alameda Santos 1470 #1407/* >>> >>> */Tel - +55.11.3266.6253/* >>> >>> */Mob- +55.11.8181.1464/* >>> >>> */vanda at uol.com.br /* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM >>>> To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; >>> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear list >>> >>> >>> >>> one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a >>> reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in >>> February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, >>> 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in >>> Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU >>> Montbrillant >>> Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with >>> no >>> consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill >>> and >>> Sarbulan was online from NY. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any proposal? >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging >>> from >>> the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which >>> could >>> absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so >>> far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other >>> IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS >>> Forum >>> could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to >>> organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - >>> could >>> go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way >>> towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> >>>> [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] >>> >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> CGI.br (www.cgi.br) >> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) >> ==================================== >> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca >> ==================================== >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Dec 28 12:09:23 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:09:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <4B38DCFB.6020809@itforchange.net> References: <1C660C72BB904AF98BC928110C96C7E8@userPC> <142C681E-1C03-478D-8532-9794882EA105@psg.com> <4B38DCFB.6020809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <06673117-E6D8-4D8D-BBF0-C24E9C81E84A@psg.com> On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: > Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. 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 stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Mon Dec 28 12:40:01 2009 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:40:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: >Be careful in mixing IGF/MAG and ICT4D/GAID. >This are two different shoes walking in >different directions. ICT4D/GAID can learn >something from IGF/MAG and we can the positive >IGF/MAG experiences as a source of inspiration >for the reform of ICT4D/GAID towards >multistakeholderism. But do not try to put the >two processes under one umbrella. This seems >risky even if some groups think this is a good >idea. Bravo Wolfgang; I share your opinion. The point is that IGF is having an unprecedented success and other powerful parties try to jump in the bus. Stefano > >Wolfgang > > > >________________________________ > >Von: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >Gesendet: Mo 28.12.2009 14:13 >An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >Cc: Vanda UOL; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Tim >Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; >tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >Betreff: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > >One of the hurdles of building this "G12" (for one, it should probably >be called "GXY" for now) is the regional distribution in representation. >I think it raises a lot of problems bundling together Mexico with the >USA in the "North America" representation -- and where do you fit the >Caribbean? So each region has its particularities and this group, if it >really is to go ahead, needs a lot of careful debate to arrive at >something which is not "defective by design" or just worthless. I think >Reding needs to mingle a bit more with the people in the different >regions before suggesting structures like this. > >Also, not sure if including Icann would not require including other >international entities closely related to one or more central items of >IG, which I think are at least as relevant as Icann's. > >--c.a. > >Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May ? >> >> You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : >> >> Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened three >> times a year >> Composition : >> The president of ICANN >> 2 represntatives of Europe >> 2 represntatives of Africa >> 2 representatives of North America >> 2 representatives of South America >> 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region >> This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and >> should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the >> majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. >> End of the proposal. >> >> Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as the >> ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her >> successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? >> BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... >> >> Best >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 >> > De : "Vanda UOL" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , >> "'Tim Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , >> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> > >> > >> >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around >> here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! >> >> I do believe we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS >> forum. For me this is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to >> organize this, I agree. 2010 we might have an appropriate "half >> time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to >> achieve till 2015. >> >> Great 2010 for all of you! >> >> Best >> >> >> >> */Vanda Scartezini/**//* >> >> */Polo Consultores Associados/* >> >> */Alameda Santos 1470 #1407/* >> >> */Tel - +55.11.3266.6253/* >> >> */Mob- +55.11.8181.1464/* >> >> */vanda at uol.com.br /* >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM >> > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; >> tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >> >> >> Dear list >> >> >> >> one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a >> reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in >> February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, >> 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in >> Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant >> Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no >> consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and >> Sarbulan was online from NY. >> >> >> >> Any proposal? >> >> >> >> BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from >> the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could >> absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so >> far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other >> IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum >> could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to >> organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could >> go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way >> towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] >> > >-- > >Carlos A. Afonso >CGI.br (www.cgi.br) >Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) >==================================== >new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca >==================================== >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Dec 28 13:16:43 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:16:43 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199BE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007e01ca86fb$3c0dc890$b42959b0$@com.br> <14687306.207624.1261990823678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <4B38AF13.90405@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87199CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2F0D0FB4-5362-4764-804B-1742C4D58E46@psg.com> On 28 Dec 2009, at 12:40, Stefano Trumpy wrote: >> Be careful in mixing IGF/MAG and ICT4D/GAID. This are two different shoes walking in different directions. ICT4D/GAID can learn something from IGF/MAG and we can the positive IGF/MAG experiences as a source of inspiration for the reform of ICT4D/GAID towards multistakeholderism. But do not try to put the two processes under one umbrella. This seems risky even if some groups think this is a good idea. > > Bravo Wolfgang; I share your opinion. The point is that IGF is having an unprecedented success and other powerful parties try to jump in the bus. whereas all they need to do is adopt its methods, adapt them to their particular culture and hopefully take them to the next step. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 13:17:08 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:17:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <142C681E-1C03-478D-8532-9794882EA105@psg.com> Message-ID: Avri and all, I have been reminded that the original TT-group was established through a "snowball" technique within the framework of those participating as part of the formal structures of the GAID and specifically to develop a letter addressing what seemed to be widespread concerns in how that particular organization was undertaking its mission within the UN context. (Hence the archives are closed to TT-group members.) I rather jumped the gun in opening up the discussion to the larger IGC community, as the original group is still discussing if and how it might respond to these latest developments. For this my apologies to one and all. The overlap between the two lists at the moment is largely because a significant proportion of the very small TT-group are also members (in some case active members) of the IGC... But beyond that there wasn't and is unlikely to be (nor IMHO should there be) much overlap in terms of the discussions between the two lists. This is apart from what I take to be Parminder's overall point concerning the need for global policy structures to handle the variety of issue areas (including those from the IGF and the ICT4D worlds) being generated at a break-neck speed by the Internet. My own feeling is that discussions in response to Parminder's point would be better undertaken within their specific context i.e. how to respond institutionally to ICT4D issue areas being left (at least for the moment) to those with specific interests (and experience) in this area and similarly for the policy issues arising from the IGF. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 7:53 AM To: IGC Cc: tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID hi, does the TT list have an open archive? Re; the G12 (and even the GXY variant) suggestion - great idea if and only if we wish to vest Internet supremacy in the hands of governments to the exclusion of civil society, the Internet technical community and the private sector. Then again they may be nice enough to let us have a liaison in the room who can, if she/he asks politely and submits it to vetting, make a statement at the end of the deliberations. a. On 28 Dec 2009, at 10:24, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Things have gone a wee bit awry here I think, with crosspostings > without enough background... > > To clarify a bit--a second e-list (tt-group... sorry can't remember > right now why that particular name) was established almost 18 months ago from within those formally involved in the governance structure of the Global Alliance for ICT for Development (UN-GAID) www.un-gaid.org/ who were critical of the way in which the GAID was operating and to suggest alternatives. (There is a substantial cross-membership between the governance list and the tt-group list). > > The tt-group list produced a letter which was formally transmitted to > the leaders and sponsors of the GAID to little visible effect. Recently, the tt-group elist was brought out of hibernation and is currently discussing if or how to react to retirement of the current ED of the GAID (Sarbuland Khan) and what appears to be a move to "mainstream" (i.e. in UN speak merge and then "disappear") the GAID as an independent UN structure. > > I think it is fair to say that the folks on the TT-group list (who are > linked by all having a serious interest in post-WSIS ICT4D policy at the global and bi-lateral institutional level) do NOT see a convergence between the current issues of the IGF and ICT4D activities or policies. > > So it is likely to be rather more efficient and effective if the > discussions on the two lists are kept relatively separate. > > However, it is likely a further consensus that the discussions (and > participants) on the TT-group list should expand much beyond a focus on the GAID so anyone on the "governance" list who has an interest in the tt-group's discussion could subscribe by sending an email > > to: sympa at vancouvercommunity.net > > message: subscribe tt-group > > (or sending me an email and I'll sub you directly. > > Best to all, > > M > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda UOL; '"Kleinwächter Wolfgang"'; > 'Tim Unwin'; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Michael Gurstein'; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > Subject: RE: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > Just a gag : why not consider the "G12" proposed by Mrs Reding in May > ? > > You don't rermember that ? Here it is summarized : > > Create a "G12 for in Internet governance" which should be convened > three times a year > Composition : > The president of ICANN > 2 represntatives of Europe > 2 represntatives of Africa > 2 representatives of North America > 2 representatives of South America > 3 representatives of Asia and Pacific region > This "G12" should debat on general orientations for the Internet and should -when necessary (sic)- formulate recommendations agreed on by the majority of its members to the attention of ICANN. > End of the proposal. > > Isn't it a marvelous team ? Mrs Reding was unfortunately replaced as > the ICT-IS Commissioner in Barroso 2 Commission. What a pity ! Will her successor, Mrs Kroes, be as prolofic for such folkloric suggestions ? > BTW : Multistaholderism is likely to be ignored by the EC ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 27/12/09 14:48 > > De : "Vanda UOL" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , "'Tim > > Unwin'" , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'Michael Gurstein'" , > > tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net Copie à : Objet : RE: [governance] > > AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > Hope too much snow haven't compromise your Christmas time! Around > here very hot! And no real results from Denmark meeting! I do believe > we need to work to "multistakeholderised" the WISIS forum. For me this > is high priority!. Mag could take a lead to organize this, I agree. > 2010 we might have an appropriate "half time" document to mark the effort already done and the goals to achieve till 2015. Great 2010 for all of you! Best > > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 > Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 > Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 > vanda at uol.com.br > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:54 AM > > To: Tim Unwin; George Sadowsky; Michael Gurstein; tt-group at vancouvercommunity.net > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Dear list > > one opportunity to have a more strategic brainstorming around a > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be the IGF consultations in February in Geneva. I propose to have on Wednesday, February, 10, 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a meeting of people present in Geneva. We had a similar meeting last year (in the ITU Montbrillant Building) where we identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no consequences after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and Sarbulan was online from NY. > > Any proposal? > > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is emerging from > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into something which could absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities. My impression is that so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could go to a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments. > > 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 > > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 14:55:33 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:55:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <06673117-E6D8-4D8D-BBF0-C24E9C81E84A@psg.com> Message-ID: <5F1716DBD7784C029E3A5363082ECE3B@userPC> Avri, I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both national and global policy development. I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) Mike (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter Olympics. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: > Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or > just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums > without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has > come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. 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 avri at psg.com Mon Dec 28 16:31:18 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <5F1716DBD7784C029E3A5363082ECE3B@userPC> References: <5F1716DBD7784C029E3A5363082ECE3B@userPC> Message-ID: <2D0D506F-AE8A-415C-AE6D-0EA40ABFFDCB@psg.com> Hi, I personally would not presume to say what we, as civil society, should be supporting. I tend to toward multistakeholder systems where each stakeholder group figures their own ways, ie. their choice from various democratic or other forms, of picking their representatives. As for what the nation states have foisted on us in the name of democracy, i have grown quite disillusioned with it as I have not seen an election yet that has not been tampered with and/or distorted in multiple ways. i strongly believe that direct democracy works at the local level but that it does not scale to the global level, and i believe that bottom-up representation can grow within the stakeholder model from the most local level up in some varying but scalable way. i do not accept that any form of top down so-called democratic form can really be democratic, it can pretend and it can lull us into a sense of democratic security, but it will always let us down and will always serve the people with money and not the rest of us. so yes, I am looking for full participatory multistakeholder process. a. On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:55, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Avri, > > I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both national and global policy development. > > I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) > > Mike > > (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter Olympics… > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > > > On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: > > > Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or > > just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums > > without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has > > come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? > > > I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. > > Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. > > So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 28 16:52:54 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:52:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <2D0D506F-AE8A-415C-AE6D-0EA40ABFFDCB@psg.com> Message-ID: > From: Avri Doria > Reply-To: , Avri Doria > Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:18 -0500 > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID > > Hi, > > I personally would not presume to say what we, as civil society, should be > supporting. NO - and my opinions below are not what I think civil society should adopt, just my perspective > > I tend to toward multistakeholder systems where each stakeholder group figures > their own ways, ie. their choice from various democratic or other forms, of > picking their representatives. Not for me - Ive had enough of dictatorships, meritocracies, feudalism, nation states, and other unrepresentative structures. Some sort of representative model is a baseline for me, and unfortunately in technical community and nation states in particular we don't always see these. > > As for what the nation states have foisted on us in the name of democracy, i > have grown quite disillusioned with it as I have not seen an election yet that > has not been tampered with and/or distorted in multiple ways. i strongly > believe that direct democracy works at the local level but that it does not > scale to the global level, and i believe that bottom-up representation can > grow within the stakeholder model from the most local level up in some varying > but scalable way. Lets face it, if planet earth had a democratic structure its governance would be entirely different. For a start, equal size electorates instead of nation states would see global politics being conducted entirely differently. For a start, the India and China votes would dominate globally because of their population sizes. And although India in particular can sit very comfortably with huge internal disparities between rich and poor, I don't think the huge current global differences between rich and poor nations would continue without some improvements. Nation states are a failure on many levels, climate change talks being the latest example, and one day we do have to move beyond this. How we do it is the question - and perhaps multistakeholderism is part of the answer. Of course we would still have bureacracies, corruption, power grabs, fear, greed, ad all of that. So it would not create a perfect world, just a slightly better way of doing things now that we are globally connected. (well, these few days before the new year are the time for stepping back a bit and taking new perspectives on things). > > i do not accept that any form of top down so-called democratic form can really > be democratic, it can pretend and it can lull us into a sense of democratic > security, but it will always let us down and will always serve the people with > money and not the rest of us. > > so yes, I am looking for full participatory multistakeholder process. > > a. > > > On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:55, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> >> Avri, >> >> I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder >> systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be >> supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both >> national and global policy development. >> >> I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that >> "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at >> classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give >> one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result >> of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various >> stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) >> >> Mike >> >> (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter OlympicsŠ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >> >> >> On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: >> >>> Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or >>> just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums >>> without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has >>> come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? >> >> >> I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. >> >> Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from >> full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the >> case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my >> personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. >> >> So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a >> well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my >> life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two >> institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has >> achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations >> states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on >> the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Dec 29 00:22:07 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:22:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: C75F73E6.9583%ian.peter@ianpeter.com Message-ID: Ian, You may be interested in this paper. http://archive.fairvote.org/tracker/?page=506 When you say (Representative) there are a host of complexities that emerge and then merge. A primary problem we face is How (many) and What (issues) constitutes a 'Representative' entity. For example: 1. A Representative may be defined by a set-number of People in a specified geographic area. 2. A Representative may be defined by a un-set number of People with like-interest. 3. A Representative may be defined by a set-number of People with like-interest. etc. ... - The interesting thing about the Internet is that it does away geographic boundary lines. [* without dewelling upon it, This is an obvious systemic-design problem with the UN] So with this capability (the Internet) a variety of 'Representative' solutions are available. We're running a few mathematical models favoring: Artificial Representative Electorate [electoral point]** [** the benefit - Artificial Representative(s) can't be bought-off by Lobbyist] Basically: Direct participation calculated to a 'Representative Point'. Doing the computation isn't hard, its creating the best Model that is taking time. It may take several Models that work together in one systemic-design, in order to achieve a balanced System. The bottom line is that: Democracy may be fair, but there are always winners and loosers. SO its very important that 'Minority Interest' be made representative as an dissenting opinion upon the resolution of the vote. (so the question becomes, with the abilities of the Internet, how are the majority and minority Interest best served, or in other words; How can we serve them both? via the technology) Anyway you get the Idea. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 29 00:32:17 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:02:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Message-ID: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include "search neutrality": the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google's dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies' revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America's leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google's free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything --- Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn't worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. /Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Dec 29 03:30:19 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:30:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <021f01ca8861$293588e0$6a00a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> I was delighted to read Adam Raff's article. It's an area we at Connecting.nyc Inc. have been concerned about for some time. While Adam focused on corporate shenanigans, our concerns center on the impact the Google search engine's lack of transparency will have on civic (civil) affairs. For example, here in New York City we're likely to see Google confronting city zoning regulations seeking variances to build offices to house its expanding enterprises: how would Google rank the organizations leading the opposition? And imagine if Google "winner$" begin running for public office, how are we to trust its opaque algorithms during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Transparent search is vital to our city's having level commercial and civic playing fields. We're looking for resources that foster the creation and assessment of transparent search engines for the .nyc TLD. Pointers to relevant resources will be appreciated. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' ; irp Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:32 AM Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include "search neutrality": the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google's dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies' revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America's leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google's free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything - Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn't worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 29 04:57:11 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:27:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B39D277.1020008@itforchange.net> It is interesting that this has become a discussion between a democratic system and a new governance form which is being called as a multistakeholder system, in contrast to democratic system. I think we should do a discussion on this list and resolve this issue in some form if possible. I consider adherence to ideals, principles and practices of democracy as absolutely non-negotiable. And I have less hesitation that others here to say that I am very sure that I think that is what progressive civil society and IGC should clearly adopt and proclaim. Is multistakeholderism a form of 'deepening democracy' and thus builds upon and works with, even within, democratic governance systems, or is it a new form of governance different from democratic governance? I can explain what i mean with democratic governance, though there is lots of literature on it, but can someone explain to me what is this alternative of multistakeholder governance - what are its ideals and ideology, its principles, and its practices. I always suspected that some of this discourse and practice of multistakeholder governance system is going dramatically away from democratic governance system, but now this discussion is more into the open it would be good to follow up on it. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > > >> From: Avri Doria >> Reply-To: , Avri Doria >> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:18 -0500 >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >> >> Hi, >> >> I personally would not presume to say what we, as civil society, should be >> supporting. >> > > NO - and my opinions below are not what I think civil society should adopt, > just my perspective > >> I tend to toward multistakeholder systems where each stakeholder group figures >> their own ways, ie. their choice from various democratic or other forms, of >> picking their representatives. >> > > Not for me - Ive had enough of dictatorships, meritocracies, feudalism, > nation states, and other unrepresentative structures. Some sort of > representative model is a baseline for me, and unfortunately in technical > community and nation states in particular we don't always see these. > >> As for what the nation states have foisted on us in the name of democracy, i >> have grown quite disillusioned with it as I have not seen an election yet that >> has not been tampered with and/or distorted in multiple ways. i strongly >> believe that direct democracy works at the local level but that it does not >> scale to the global level, and i believe that bottom-up representation can >> grow within the stakeholder model from the most local level up in some varying >> but scalable way. >> > > Lets face it, if planet earth had a democratic structure its governance > would be entirely different. For a start, equal size electorates instead of > nation states would see global politics being conducted entirely > differently. For a start, the India and China votes would dominate globally > because of their population sizes. And although India in particular can sit > very comfortably with huge internal disparities between rich and poor, I > don't think the huge current global differences between rich and poor > nations would continue without some improvements. Nation states are a > failure on many levels, climate change talks being the latest example, and > one day we do have to move beyond this. How we do it is the question - and > perhaps multistakeholderism is part of the answer. > > Of course we would still have bureacracies, corruption, power grabs, fear, > greed, ad all of that. So it would not create a perfect world, just a > slightly better way of doing things now that we are globally connected. > > (well, these few days before the new year are the time for stepping back a > bit and taking new perspectives on things). > > > > > >> i do not accept that any form of top down so-called democratic form can really >> be democratic, it can pretend and it can lull us into a sense of democratic >> security, but it will always let us down and will always serve the people with >> money and not the rest of us. >> >> so yes, I am looking for full participatory multistakeholder process. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:55, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >> >>> Avri, >>> >>> I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder >>> systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be >>> supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both >>> national and global policy development. >>> >>> I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that >>> "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at >>> classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give >>> one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result >>> of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various >>> stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter OlympicsS( >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or >>>> just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums >>>> without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has >>>> come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? >>>> >>> I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. >>> >>> Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from >>> full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the >>> case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my >>> personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. >>> >>> So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a >>> well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my >>> life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two >>> institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has >>> achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations >>> states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on >>> the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Dec 29 05:21:40 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:21:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <4B39D277.1020008@itforchange.net> References: <4B39D277.1020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B39D834.4010402@wzb.eu> Hi all, I think the problem with discussing democracy versus multi-stakeholder arrangements or multi-stakeholder arrangements as forms of democracy is that the term democracy has become so blurred. While the majority of countries call themselves democracy today, their democratic practices vary widely. The same is true for voting as a core element of democratic organization. Each voting system represents the will of the people in a specific way and none of them does so "objectively". So, democracy as such doesn't provide enough substance in terms of practices to function as a good benchmark. Also, its traditional components don't work in international settings. They way I see it is that we face a bit of a clean sheet situation where experiments with new institutions are required to find out what works on the transnational level and may be regarded as legitimate by those who are affected. jeanette Parminder wrote: > It is interesting that this has become a discussion between a democratic > system and a new governance form which is being called as a > multistakeholder system, in contrast to democratic system. I think we > should do a discussion on this list and resolve this issue in some form > if possible. I consider adherence to ideals, principles and practices of > democracy as absolutely non-negotiable. And I have less hesitation that > others here to say that I am very sure that I think that is what > progressive civil society and IGC should clearly adopt and proclaim. > > Is multistakeholderism a form of 'deepening democracy' and thus builds > upon and works with, even within, democratic governance systems, or is > it a new form of governance different from democratic governance? > > I can explain what i mean with democratic governance, though there is > lots of literature on it, but can someone explain to me what is this > alternative of multistakeholder governance - what are its ideals and > ideology, its principles, and its practices. I always suspected that > some of this discourse and practice of multistakeholder governance > system is going dramatically away from democratic governance system, but > now this discussion is more into the open it would be good to follow up > on it. Parminder > > Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Reply-To: , Avri Doria >>> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:18 -0500 >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I personally would not presume to say what we, as civil society, should be >>> supporting. >>> >> >> NO - and my opinions below are not what I think civil society should adopt, >> just my perspective >> >>> I tend to toward multistakeholder systems where each stakeholder group figures >>> their own ways, ie. their choice from various democratic or other forms, of >>> picking their representatives. >>> >> >> Not for me - Ive had enough of dictatorships, meritocracies, feudalism, >> nation states, and other unrepresentative structures. Some sort of >> representative model is a baseline for me, and unfortunately in technical >> community and nation states in particular we don't always see these. >> >>> As for what the nation states have foisted on us in the name of democracy, i >>> have grown quite disillusioned with it as I have not seen an election yet that >>> has not been tampered with and/or distorted in multiple ways. i strongly >>> believe that direct democracy works at the local level but that it does not >>> scale to the global level, and i believe that bottom-up representation can >>> grow within the stakeholder model from the most local level up in some varying >>> but scalable way. >>> >> >> Lets face it, if planet earth had a democratic structure its governance >> would be entirely different. For a start, equal size electorates instead of >> nation states would see global politics being conducted entirely >> differently. For a start, the India and China votes would dominate globally >> because of their population sizes. And although India in particular can sit >> very comfortably with huge internal disparities between rich and poor, I >> don't think the huge current global differences between rich and poor >> nations would continue without some improvements. Nation states are a >> failure on many levels, climate change talks being the latest example, and >> one day we do have to move beyond this. How we do it is the question - and >> perhaps multistakeholderism is part of the answer. >> >> Of course we would still have bureacracies, corruption, power grabs, fear, >> greed, ad all of that. So it would not create a perfect world, just a >> slightly better way of doing things now that we are globally connected. >> >> (well, these few days before the new year are the time for stepping back a >> bit and taking new perspectives on things). >> >> >> >> >> >>> i do not accept that any form of top down so-called democratic form can really >>> be democratic, it can pretend and it can lull us into a sense of democratic >>> security, but it will always let us down and will always serve the people with >>> money and not the rest of us. >>> >>> so yes, I am looking for full participatory multistakeholder process. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:55, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Avri, >>>> >>>> I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder >>>> systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be >>>> supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both >>>> national and global policy development. >>>> >>>> I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that >>>> "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at >>>> classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give >>>> one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result >>>> of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various >>>> stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter OlympicsŠ >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM >>>> To: IGC >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or >>>>> just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums >>>>> without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has >>>>> come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? >>>>> >>>> I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. >>>> >>>> Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from >>>> full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the >>>> case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my >>>> personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. >>>> >>>> So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a >>>> well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my >>>> life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two >>>> institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has >>>> achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations >>>> states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on >>>> the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 08:58:30 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:58:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID In-Reply-To: <4B39D277.1020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: And presumably this is a discussion among those concerned with determining a "civil society" position on these issues i.e. not an academic discussion about what could be the most efficient or effective mode of Internet governance. Thus we are looking for what should be advocated by those presenting/representing non-corporate, non-governmental interests in this context... So the operative question for us here is not what is the most efficient and effective form of global (Internet) governance, but rather appears to be what form of global (Internet) governance most desirably serves the interests of everyone else in a world defined as one where the corporate sector and the governmental sector are bent on pursuing narrow self serving interests. Also of course, the history of civil society is one where not only is a core and defining civil society value some form of democracy i.e. governance which is responsible and accountable to the governed; but also, where the fundamental value being pursued by civil society in all contexts is in fact responsible and democratic governance however this might be defined in specific local contexts... (Also, and not incidentally, one of the reasons that "democracy" is such a fundamental value for civil society is that history has shown that civil sociey is only allowed to exist within systems of democractic governance... outside of those systems, civil society is seen as a mortal threat and is often brutally supressed... and including -- coming full circle -- a denial of the right by those in the non-corporate, non-government sector to access the Internet... . Mike -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID It is interesting that this has become a discussion between a democratic system and a new governance form which is being called as a multistakeholder system, in contrast to democratic system. I think we should do a discussion on this list and resolve this issue in some form if possible. I consider adherence to ideals, principles and practices of democracy as absolutely non-negotiable. And I have less hesitation that others here to say that I am very sure that I think that is what progressive civil society and IGC should clearly adopt and proclaim. Is multistakeholderism a form of 'deepening democracy' and thus builds upon and works with, even within, democratic governance systems, or is it a new form of governance different from democratic governance? I can explain what i mean with democratic governance, though there is lots of literature on it, but can someone explain to me what is this alternative of multistakeholder governance - what are its ideals and ideology, its principles, and its practices. I always suspected that some of this discourse and practice of multistakeholder governance system is going dramatically away from democratic governance system, but now this discussion is more into the open it would be good to follow up on it. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: From: Avri Doria Reply-To: , Avri Doria Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:18 -0500 To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID Hi, I personally would not presume to say what we, as civil society, should be supporting. NO - and my opinions below are not what I think civil society should adopt, just my perspective I tend to toward multistakeholder systems where each stakeholder group figures their own ways, ie. their choice from various democratic or other forms, of picking their representatives. Not for me - Ive had enough of dictatorships, meritocracies, feudalism, nation states, and other unrepresentative structures. Some sort of representative model is a baseline for me, and unfortunately in technical community and nation states in particular we don't always see these. As for what the nation states have foisted on us in the name of democracy, i have grown quite disillusioned with it as I have not seen an election yet that has not been tampered with and/or distorted in multiple ways. i strongly believe that direct democracy works at the local level but that it does not scale to the global level, and i believe that bottom-up representation can grow within the stakeholder model from the most local level up in some varying but scalable way. Lets face it, if planet earth had a democratic structure its governance would be entirely different. For a start, equal size electorates instead of nation states would see global politics being conducted entirely differently. For a start, the India and China votes would dominate globally because of their population sizes. And although India in particular can sit very comfortably with huge internal disparities between rich and poor, I don't think the huge current global differences between rich and poor nations would continue without some improvements. Nation states are a failure on many levels, climate change talks being the latest example, and one day we do have to move beyond this. How we do it is the question - and perhaps multistakeholderism is part of the answer. Of course we would still have bureacracies, corruption, power grabs, fear, greed, ad all of that. So it would not create a perfect world, just a slightly better way of doing things now that we are globally connected. (well, these few days before the new year are the time for stepping back a bit and taking new perspectives on things). i do not accept that any form of top down so-called democratic form can really be democratic, it can pretend and it can lull us into a sense of democratic security, but it will always let us down and will always serve the people with money and not the rest of us. so yes, I am looking for full participatory multistakeholder process. a. On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:55, Michael Gurstein wrote: Avri, I'm not really sure what you mean by "full participatory multistakeholder systems" but I would have thought that we, as civil society should be supporting a full participatory democratic process as the basis for both national and global policy development. I have very real concerns about the corporatist outcomes and forms that "multistakeholder systems" seem to result in--a close look for example, at classic multistakeholder systems like the IOC/Olympics structures don't give one a lot of confidence in the broader benefits that are achieved as a result of these processes. (The narrower benefits realized by the various stakeholder beneficiaries and elites are rather easier to identify.) Mike (about to become a temporary refugee from the Vancouver Winter OlympicsŠ -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:09 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] AW: [tt-group] FW: GAID On 28 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Parminder wrote: Do we basically lack belief in global policies (polity) of any kind or just in global policies made exclusively by intergovernmental forums without due participation by civil society in the spirit of what has come to be known as 'deepening democracy'? I am not sure that we, in the sense of we the IGC, have a belief. Personally, i believe that the only valid global policies would come from full participatory multistakeholder systems. while it may not always be the case, the national state still fulfills a relevant function, but in my personal opinion it is one of several equal partners in any debate. So as long as we, in the sense of the IGC, are supporting the creation of a well formed multistakeholder regime, we have something I believe in. in my life i work for (either in a volunteer sense or a professional sense) two institutions that are working toward a multistakeholder future. neither has achieved that fully yet - each has a dominant force, in one the nations states and in the other the private sector, but both are, in my opinion on the right track an represent as far as we can get at this point. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 09:41:25 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:41:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the most part: "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder wrote: > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise > the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for > complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other > search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information > and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think > everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done > bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > Search, but You May Not Find > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications > Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit > Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums > for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct > that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, > but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T > and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have > become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in > directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of > its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look > beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle > that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their > results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much > market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of > the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s > dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming > control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales > next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues > that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored > links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert “penalties” > that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from > its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will > in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company’s vertical > search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” > from the Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal > search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its > search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of > others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product > queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results > for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And > Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only > the beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search > results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And > Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any > service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new > entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. > > Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the > development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement > of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s > leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of > TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the > weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite > navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, > lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google > planned a real-estate search service here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive > advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google > Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real > Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. > But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. > Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, > Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that > Google has acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines > behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: > Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and > AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its > inventors, Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed > by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a > leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. > Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality > that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue > that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a > cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an > overwhelmingly dominant search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network > neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to > expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that > the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines > as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which > innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. > > *Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm.* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 29 09:47:54 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:47:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <347740.71719.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> School systems have been doing this for years. Before that there was a guy named Luther. I seem to remember hearing about illegal reading for certain races. ICANN practices censorship which is this in reverse. We all understand exclusionary book police, will we need inclusionary book police?   If we take out market forces, what will replace them? If we could just regulate and dictate proper judgment and intelligence. (for me, when searching for information, I always choose the book with the brightest colors, who wants depessing facts when you can get bright and cheery ones :-) --- On Tue, 12/29/09, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "irp" Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 5:32 AM See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert “penalties” that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company’s vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. -----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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 10:03:46 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:03:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <74BC3AA20F1D42E88BAF54DA31B1C667@userPC> McTim and all, I have immense respect for Lauren Weinstein and particularly his work with the Privacy Forum and I have no expert knowledge in the underlying argument either of the original article by Raff or the article pointed to in Weinstein's piece but clearly Weinstein has misread the Raff article (or I've missed something important... The Raff article is pointing to some significant risks from the dominance of one company (Google) as the primary interface with the world wide web of knowledge/information... Surely a significant (potential) issue in itself... The rather (what seems to me) tenuous links of the Raff article to the anti-NN argument are hardly sufficient to dismiss the basic question that Raff is asking about the need for a policy/regulatory assessment of the significance of Google's market dominance in this core area of Internet development and value. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: irp Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the most part: "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder wrote: See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include "search neutrality": the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google's dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies' revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America's leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google's free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything - Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn't worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Dec 29 11:07:22 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:07:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <02a701ca88a1$029dab00$6a00a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> McTim, Adam Raff succesfully jumped on the net neutrality bandwagon and rode it to the New York Times OpEd page. >From a civic affairs perspective a more appropriate and easily measured goal is search engine transparency. Any thoughts on its utility, practicality, and related development work? Thomas Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder Cc: irp Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the most part: "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder wrote: See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert “penalties” that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company’s vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 29 11:12:09 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:42:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> McTim So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality, and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement. However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this. Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear to me. "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) Competitors of Google's other products (other than search engine), Adam is alleging, feel similarly strangled by an uneven search playing field.... I cant see why this issue is not as important as ISPs making connectivity pipes an even playing ground. Parminder Parminder McTim wrote: > see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the > most part: > > "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to > 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is > time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of > search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are > now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge > globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, > including controlling excesses of market power, can be done > bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > > Search, but You May Not Find > > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal > Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, > which would prohibit Internet service providers from > discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services > or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that > ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is > vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service > providers like AT&T and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing > have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they > play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as > essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical > network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality > and include "search neutrality": the principle that search engines > should have no editorial policies other than that their results be > comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so > much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With > 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in > Britain), Google's dominance of both search and search advertising > gives it overwhelming control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 > billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions > of dollars of other companies' revenues that Google controls > indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert > "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, > removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so > far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be > found. For three years, my company's vertical search and > price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from > the Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through > preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it > calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services > at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms > it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own > price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results > for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, > and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated > plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the > beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability > to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top > of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable > competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well > beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever > it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed > and innovation is imperiled. > > Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained > the development of our innovative search technology. The > preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest > from its position as America's leading online mapping service > virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of > navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks > since the announcement of Google's free turn-by-turn satellite > navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's leading real-estate > portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere > rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive > advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of > Google Everything --- Google Travel, Google Finance, Google > Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, > Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we > needn't worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is > regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google > Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other > Google products are all based on technology that Google has > acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic > engines behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed > inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied > Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is > used under license from its inventors, Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and > innovation posed by the market power of Internet service > providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net > neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace > search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that > truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to > argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the > hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the > hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network > neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the > commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, > it should ensure that the principles of transparency and > nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service > providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can > be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. > > /Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm./ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Dec 29 11:19:15 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:19:15 -0500 Subject: [IRP] [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <74BC3AA20F1D42E88BAF54DA31B1C667@userPC> References: ,<74BC3AA20F1D42E88BAF54DA31B1C667@userPC> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF398@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I agree with McTim and Lauren that this is really about undermining the Google-inspired net neutrality actions now being considered by the FCC. I agree with Raff and Michael that the dominance of one firm, growing daily, is a matter for public policy concern. You can do a search to figure out which company I´m thinking of ; ) And I agree with anyone who thinks both net and search neutrality per se is nonsense. Here´s my Internet/political weather forecast: lots more obfuscation from all parties, for years to come. Until people figure out the right word is open - including open to a wide variety of non-neutral content and services. Lee ________________________________________ From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder' Cc: 'irp' Subject: Re: [IRP] [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality McTim and all, I have immense respect for Lauren Weinstein and particularly his work with the Privacy Forum and I have no expert knowledge in the underlying argument either of the original article by Raff or the article pointed to in Weinstein's piece but clearly Weinstein has misread the Raff article (or I've missed something important... The Raff article is pointing to some significant risks from the dominance of one company (Google) as the primary interface with the world wide web of knowledge/information... Surely a significant (potential) issue in itself... The rather (what seems to me) tenuous links of the Raff article to the anti-NN argument are hardly sufficient to dismiss the basic question that Raff is asking about the need for a policy/regulatory assessment of the significance of Google's market dominance in this core area of Internet development and value. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: irp Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the most part: "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder > wrote: See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. Parminder http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html Search, but You May Not Find By ADAM RAFF Published: December 27, 2009 AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert “penalties” that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company’s vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” from the Internet in this way. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, Overture. Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Dec 29 11:33:03 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:33:03 -0500 Subject: [IRP] [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF398@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<74BC3AA20F1D42E88BAF54DA31B1C667@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF398@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77C97DDB-487B-4224-922F-6D3F558FFAE6@datos-personales.org> There is no X, Y, and Z corporations. There is simple one company. ------------ http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091209/hitwise-nov-search-stats/ The Digital Daily Feed November Search Stats: Google’s Not the Competition, It’s the Environment in Which You Compete by John Paczkowski Posted on December 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM PT November search metrics are beginning to roll in and they’re pretty much what you’d expect. According to Experian Hitwise, Google’s (GOOG) share of the U.S. search market rose 1.4 percent in November from a month earlier to 71.6 percent. Meanwhile, Yahoo’s (YHOO) share fell 4.6 percent to 15.4 percent and Microsoft’s (MSFT) Bing slid 2.4 percent to 9.3 percent (see table below; click to enlarge). ComScore data on the search market are widely considered the industry standard and therefore more closely watched by Wall Street. Still, the big picture is clear: Google is not the competition, it’s the environment in which you compete. The IT industry used to say that about IBM (IBM), but today, the adage seems equally applicable to Google, which dominates the sear On Dec 29, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with McTim and Lauren that this is really about undermining > the Google-inspired net neutrality actions now being considered by > the FCC. > > I agree with Raff and Michael that the dominance of one firm, > growing daily, is a matter for public policy concern. You can do a > search to figure out which company I´m thinking of ; ) > > And I agree with anyone who thinks both net and search neutrality > per se is nonsense. > > Here´s my Internet/political weather forecast: lots more obfuscation > from all parties, for years to come. > > Until people figure out the right word is open - including open to a > wide variety of non-neutral content and services. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > ] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder' > Cc: 'irp' > Subject: Re: [IRP] [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net > neutrality > > McTim and all, > > I have immense respect for Lauren Weinstein and particularly his > work with the Privacy Forum and I have no expert knowledge in the > underlying argument either of the original article by Raff or the > article pointed to in Weinstein's piece but clearly Weinstein has > misread the Raff article (or I've missed something important... > > The Raff article is pointing to some significant risks from the > dominance of one company (Google) as the primary interface with the > world wide web of knowledge/information... Surely a significant > (potential) issue in itself... > > The rather (what seems to me) tenuous links of the Raff article to > the anti-NN argument are hardly sufficient to dismiss the basic > question that Raff is asking about the need for a policy/regulatory > assessment of the significance of Google's market dominance in this > core area of Internet development and value. > > M > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:41 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: irp > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net > neutrality > > see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for > the most part: > > "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe" > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder > > wrote: > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to > 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time > we called for complete disclosure in public interest of search > logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a > (the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also > a point to ponder for those who think everything, including > controlling excesses of market power, can be done bottom-up and may > not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > Search, but You May Not Find > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal > Communications Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, > which would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating > against or charging premiums for certain services or applications on > the Web. The commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the > infrastructure of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing > its regulations only at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing > have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they > play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential > a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. > The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include > “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have > no editorial policies other than that their results be > comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so > much market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 > percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in > Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising > gives it overwhelming control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 > billion last year, but this pales next to the hundreds of billions > of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls > indirectly through its search results and sponsored links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert > “penalties” that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, > removing them entirely from its search results or placing them so > far down the rankings that they will in all likelihood never be > found. For three years, my company’s vertical search and price- > comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” from the > Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal > search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top > of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the > services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison > results for product queries, its own map results for geographic > queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own > YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s stated plans for > universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of > its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive > advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the > confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, > incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation > is imperiled. > > Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the > development of our innovative search technology. The preferential > placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position > as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The > share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by > some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free > turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s > leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this > month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search > service here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive > advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of > Google Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, > Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t > worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given > credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, > Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all > based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic > engines behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed > inventions: Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics > in 2003; and AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under > license from its inventors, Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation > posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has > long been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a > difficult choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical > extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the > Internet? Or will it try to argue that discriminatory market power > is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or telecommunications > company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly dominant > search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network > neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission > to expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should > ensure that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination > apply to search engines as well as to service providers. The > alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be squashed at > will by an all-powerful search engine. > > Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 12:43:57 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:43:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure > network neutrality, > Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes. > and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. > yes > Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content > edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web > services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false > assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) > > That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak > on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise > 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on > this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement. > > This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN. > > However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is > discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated > parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive > practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this > account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show > that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a > connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being > anti-competitive activities. > > What connection is that? > Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of > muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN > regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. > And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has > something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html > > Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google > which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier > also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines. A powerful > actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to > move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but > I think everyone can understand this. > I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades. > Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google > used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. > Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? \ > So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results > so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? > yes > So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about > Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear to me. > I agree with the below paragraph. > > "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more > people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least > as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via > their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) > Happy New Year, McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 14:21:53 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:21:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd0912291121m15a290d9ua744c0fe218ff9c7@mail.gmail.com> Literally ANY system that seeks to more "efficiently" organize knowledge or discussion, whether via search engines or structuring of discussion or, for that matter, the design of surveys, must and does make value choices along the way on behalf of other people. This necessary "censorship" or structuring, no matter how innocent, is unavoidable. On top of that there is the temptation to go even further down the road of streamlining and organization in the perceived interests of user convenience, and then of course there's intentional censorhip of that which is considered (using value judgments) of low value, utility or accuracy or some combination thereof. By no means the only example, but an example nonetheless, is the good faith efforts to design websites that structure or facilitate dialogue. I'm interested in this topic myself, but I realize that in seeking to moderate any discussion, I'm interfering with it on the basis of value judgments of my own - which may range from streamlining discussion to a discriminatory preference for my definition of "civil" discussion or on-topic discussion. Does this mean no one should attempt the above? No. But it does mean that designers of speech-forums should be conscious of inevitable biases, should disclose their negative effects, and should be aware so that they don't go too far. We shouldn't have to "catch" google or anybody else restructuring our worlds of information without being really up front about what they're doing and why. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 12/28/09, Parminder wrote: > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to > 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we > called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of > Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal > source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for > those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market > power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > > Search, but You May Not Find > > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal > Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, which > would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or > charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The > commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure > of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only > at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have > become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in > directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component > of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs > to look beyond network neutrality and include "search neutrality": the > principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other > than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on > relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much > market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent > of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google's > dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming > control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this > pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies' > revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and > sponsored links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert > "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing > them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the > rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three > years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, > was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal > search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of > its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the > services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results > for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own > news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video > queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear > that this is only the beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its > search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive > advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines > of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are > toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. > > Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the > development of our innovative search technology. The preferential > placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as > America's leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share > price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 > percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google's free > turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's > leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this > month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service > here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive > advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google > Everything --- Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google > Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn't > worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is regularly given > credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, > Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based > on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines > behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: > Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and > AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its > inventors, Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation > posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long > been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult > choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to > net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will > it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in > the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the > hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network > neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to > expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure > that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to > search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an > Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful > search engine. > > /Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm./ > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 29 14:44:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:44:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0912291121m15a290d9ua744c0fe218ff9c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <596179.16678.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Perhaps the most undesirable species of this type of "funnelling" work is not even so much in the matters of speech or thought control but in the closed cadre concepts brought out lately.  It is bad enough to point out the direction that we want thought to move in, but when we begin to say who is entitled to participate in open thought we are way down the road to wrong.   The next step we see lingering around is "what type of thought does one engage in?" and should that thought pattern be allowed to participate, especially in a vote.  Googles search direction and our recent survey are in fact birds of a feather. Narten over at the GA says it is "herding kittens" as though he knows what direction the felines should move in.  I dare say that for most on this list the issue is a non-issue because they have the ability to discern the reason behind the question or infomation -- but how about for poor guys like me? Are we destined to absorb IT PC like a hog in slop? --- On Tue, 12/29/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 7:21 PM Literally ANY system that seeks to more "efficiently" organize knowledge or discussion, whether via search engines or structuring of discussion or, for that matter, the design of surveys, must and does make value choices along the way on behalf of other people. This necessary "censorship" or structuring, no matter how innocent, is unavoidable.  On top of that there is the temptation to go even further down the road of streamlining and organization in the perceived interests of user convenience, and then of course there's intentional censorhip of that which is considered (using value judgments) of low value, utility or accuracy or some combination thereof. By no means the only example, but an example nonetheless, is the good faith efforts to design websites that structure or facilitate dialogue. I'm interested in this topic myself, but I realize that in seeking to moderate any discussion, I'm interfering with it on the basis of value judgments of my own - which may range from streamlining discussion to a discriminatory preference for my definition of "civil" discussion or on-topic discussion. Does this mean no one should attempt the above?  No.  But it does mean that designers of speech-forums should be conscious of inevitable biases, should disclose their negative effects, and should be aware so that they don't go too far.  We shouldn't have to "catch" google or anybody else restructuring our worlds of information without being really up front about what they're doing and why. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 12/28/09, Parminder wrote: > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to > 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we > called for complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of > Google and other search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal > source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for > those who think everything, including controlling excesses of market > power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > >   Search, but You May Not Find > > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal > Communications Commission has proposed "network neutrality" rules, which > would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against or > charging premiums for certain services or applications on the Web. The > commission is correct that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure > of the Internet is vital, but it errs in directing its regulations only > at service providers like AT&T and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have > become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in > directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component > of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs > to look beyond network neutrality and include "search neutrality": the > principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other > than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on > relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much > market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent > of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google's > dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming > control. Google's revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this > pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies' > revenues that Google controls indirectly through its search results and > sponsored links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert > "penalties" that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing > them entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the > rankings that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three > years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, > was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal > search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of > its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the > services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results > for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own > news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video > queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear > that this is only the beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its > search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive > advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines > of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are > toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. > > Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the > development of our innovative search technology. The preferential > placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as > America's leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share > price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 > percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google's free > turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain's > leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this > month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service > here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google's competitive > advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google > Everything --- Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google > Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn't > worry. But the company isn't as innovative as it is regularly given > credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, > Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based > on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines > behind Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: > Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and > AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its > inventors, Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation > posed by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long > been a leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult > choice. Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to > net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will > it try to argue that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in > the hands of a cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the > hands of an overwhelmingly dominant search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network > neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to > expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure > that the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to > search engines as well as to service providers. The alternative is an > Internet in which innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful > search engine. > > /Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm./ > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Dec 29 15:16:41 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:16:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: And below, an article on how the need to get money for content is forcing papers to think of revenue streams: "Rupert Murdoch, beyond charging for access to The Journal, has talked about forming a partnership with a single search engine, which would pay him for the rights to scour the news and entertainment programming produced by his company, the News Corporation, rather than letting all search engines crawl his sites. " http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/business/media/28paywall.html?_r=2&em Rui 2009/12/29 Parminder : > See below an interesting article on how the company that seeks to 'organise > the world's knowledge' really may be doing it. It is time we called for > complete disclosure in public interest of search logics of Google and other > search engine, which truly are now a (the?) principal source of information > and knowledge globally. Also a point to ponder for those who think > everything, including controlling excesses of market power, can be done > bottom-up and may not need policy regimes. > > Parminder > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html > > Search, but You May Not Find > > By ADAM RAFF > Published: December 27, 2009 > > AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be > increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications > Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit > Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums > for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct > that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital, > but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like AT&T > and Comcast. > > Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have > become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in > directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of > its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look > beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle > that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their > results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. > > The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much > market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of > the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s > dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming > control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales > next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues > that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored > links. > > One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert “penalties” > that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them entirely from > its search results or placing them so far down the rankings that they will > in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my company’s vertical > search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively “disappeared” > from the Internet in this way. > > Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal > search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its > search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of > others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product > queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results > for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And > Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only > the beginning. > > Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search > results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And > Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any > service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new > entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled. > > Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the > development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement > of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s > leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of > TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the > weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite > navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, > lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google > planned a real-estate search service here. > > Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, > we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything — > Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google > Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. > > Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. > But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. > Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, > Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that > Google has acquired rather than invented. > > Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind > Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions: Google > acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and AdWords, > though developed by Google, is used under license from its inventors, > Overture. > > Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed by > the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a leading > proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice. Will it > embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that > truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue that > discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a cable or > telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an overwhelmingly > dominant search engine? > > The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network neutrality > rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to expand the scope > of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that the principles of > transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines as well as to > service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which innovation can be > squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. > > Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 30 00:53:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:53:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF395@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <993344.34492.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM Jeremy, Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before  you ask lots of people to complete it. My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements.  In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it).  Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer.  If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010.  Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey.  I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Dec 30 05:09:14 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:09:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear All 1. As a language practitioner, I am always sensitive to language issues. Asking questions that are structured in the present tense to refer to a future situation might be easy to grasp in English, but becomes less in other languages. We are a world community and on this list have all kinds of people, some less familiar with these formats. I can't see why the questions cannot be formulated with "should". That would make it clear to everybody. 2. The questions are not numbered, so, right now it makes it difficult to refer to issues to be looked into to improve the questions. 3. What does one do with the secondary questions? eg 1: To whom is the Secretariat directly accountable? + Is this sufficient? eg 2: How is the MAG (by whatever name) selected? + Is this the best option? 4. What is the point of the question mark icon where the current situation statement appears? 5. Refer to Point 1 above. I see that on the second page, questions are formulated with "should". On Page 3 it goes back to the present tense. 6. On Page 3 the clear distinction between the first question and the "currently/ at present" statement becomes blurred. Regards, Rui 2009/12/24 Jeremy Malcolm : > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it).  Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer.  If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010.  Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey.  I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Dec 30 12:00:26 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:00:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports Message-ID: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> Hi everyone, Markus Kummer sent the following message on workshop reports to the MAG list today: Dear colleagues, You may have noticed that we have extended the deadline for submitting workshop reports by one month, that is until 18 January. Originally, we had thought that one month after the end of the Sharm meeting should be sufficient to write down a short report. We also thought that it might be helpful to do so as quickly as possible after the event, as long as the memory was still fresh. Unfortunately, we were not very successful in this endeavour. We only received around some 20 reports for the 100 plus workshops and other events. We therefore extended the deadline, not least also to accommodate some workshop organizers who had some valid reasons for their delay in reporting. If you were involved in a workshop, please use your influence to get the report written and in any case it would be helpful to spread the news among your respective stakeholder groups. We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. As we are approaching the end of the year, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for your collaboration and support throughout 2009 and wish you all the best for a successful and happy 2010. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 00:10:59 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:10:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <993344.34492.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: To be "nerdy" about this... I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws. The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding possible structural reforms for the Internet " however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within the IGF IS rather than what it OUGHT TO BE in the opinion of the responder. Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise... Best, Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist... -----Original Message-----From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM Jeremy, Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before you ask lots of people to complete it. My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com ] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 31 04:18:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:48:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> Hi All While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the process will go forward). While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov reps. Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 31 06:03:39 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:03:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports In-Reply-To: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> References: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: >We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite >for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new >deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential >organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several workshops were merged, which has left the definition of "organizer" unclear. Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on similar topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the administrative work, Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after he'd passed the contact details for his proposed speakers to Tom. Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was co-organising his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never contacted Alice to confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also disqualify Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop in their original individual capacities for Vilnius? -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Dec 31 06:28:09 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:28:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports In-Reply-To: <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> References: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B3C8AC9.8000401@wzb.eu> Hi Perry, such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to share the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my personal thoughts. jeanette Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, > Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: > >> We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite >> for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new >> deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential >> organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. > > There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several workshops > were merged, which has left the definition of "organizer" unclear. > > Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on similar > topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the administrative work, > Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after he'd passed the contact > details for his proposed speakers to Tom. > > Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was co-organising > his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never contacted Alice to > confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. > > Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also disqualify > Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop in their original > individual capacities for Vilnius? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Dec 31 07:48:42 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:48:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> Dear Parminder As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      > there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov > reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 31 08:24:15 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports In-Reply-To: <4B3C8AC9.8000401@wzb.eu> References: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> <4B3C8AC9.8000401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4B3C8AC9.8000401 at wzb.eu>, at 11:28:09 on Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Jeanette Hofmann writes >such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice >should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a >position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. >Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to share >the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my personal >thoughts. I'm primarily concerned about the multitude of people mentioned as co-organisers, who may not realise that their future prospects could depend upon a report being filed. Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and "Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the website). Roland. >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec >>2009, Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: >> >>> We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite >>>for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new >>>deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential >>>organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. >> There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several >>workshops were merged, which has left the definition of "organizer" >>unclear. >> Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on similar >>topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the administrative work, >>Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after he'd passed the contact >>details for his proposed speakers to Tom. >> Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was >>co-organising his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never >>contacted Alice to confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. >> Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also >>disqualify Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop in >>their original individual capacities for Vilnius? >______________________________________________________ -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 31 08:47:14 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:47:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports In-Reply-To: References: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> <4B3C8AC9.8000401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: >In message <4B3C8AC9.8000401 at wzb.eu>, at 11:28:09 on Thu, 31 Dec >2009, Jeanette Hofmann writes >>such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice >>should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a >>position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. >>Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to >>share the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my >>personal thoughts. > >I'm primarily concerned about the multitude of people mentioned as >co-organisers, who may not realise that their future prospects could >depend upon a report being filed. There's a section in each workshop proposal "The Workshop is proposed on behalf of" and it's the organizations listed there that are responsible for the report. They should know who they are as the organized and held a workshop in Sharm. The requirement to file was part of the call for workshops, this isn't a surprise request (was also a condition last year.) I submitted a workshop proposal, had supporters from various stakeholders, but I led the organizing. We eventually merged with a workshop proposed by Bill Woodcock (he also had support from various stakeholders). Bill and I, for GLOCOM and PCH, are responsible for the report. Not the other stakeholders who supported the workshop. If we don't submit a report (haven't yet...) we'll not be eligible to organize a workshop next year. Adam >Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and >"Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the >website). > >Roland. > >>Roland Perry wrote: >>>In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec >>>2009, Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: >>> >>>>We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a >>>>prerequisite for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius >>>>meeting. The new deadline will give us a clearer picture of how >>>>many potential organizers we may have next year by the time we >>>>meet in February. >>> There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several >>>workshops were merged, which has left the definition of >>>"organizer" unclear. >>> Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on >>>similar topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the >>>administrative work, Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after >>>he'd passed the contact details for his proposed speakers to Tom. >>> Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was >>>co-organising his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never >>>contacted Alice to confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. >>> Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also >>>disqualify Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop >>>in their original individual capacities for Vilnius? >>______________________________________________________ > >-- >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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 31 09:06:08 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:06:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports In-Reply-To: References: <4B3B872A.4010908@wzb.eu> <9K3$rYhLUIPLFAYo@perry.co.uk> <4B3C8AC9.8000401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message , at 22:47:14 on Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Adam Peake writes >There's a section in each workshop proposal "The Workshop is proposed >on behalf of" and it's the organizations listed there that are >responsible for the report. That's exactly what I was suggesting (see below). >They should know who they are as the organized and held a workshop in >Sharm. Up to a point. Sometimes even joint proposers were no-shows in Sharm (or had played no part in the planning other than tentatively agreeing to be a speaker). But at least this narrows the field considerably. >>Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and >>"Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the website). >> >>Roland. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 11:01:21 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:31:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] Launch of Youth and IG Dynamic Coalition Message-ID: <4B3CCAD1.5000307@gmail.com> New Year, new projects, new ideas, new voices: The Dynamic Coalition for Youth and IG will be launched soon, so anyone who is interested in jointing/supporting that group, please contact Rafik Dammak, the coordinator. The coalition would like to be organized and operational before the OC in February, so this is a great time to get involved. This is about their future, but it is our future too! Good luck to this group. Please keep the IGC informed so we can support and collaborate as 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 11:32:17 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:02:17 -0430 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects In-Reply-To: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B3CD211.3010602@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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 31 07:32:32 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:32:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <707984.95975.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <2F6932AA-2B22-4E81-8F45-814B2F2496F4@ciroap.org> <701af9f70912241446i7a94e611ge7eef33ec8b0260b@mail.gmail.com> <707984.95975.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9899C2CC-1F05-4A57-B25C-0D4215CB8F88@ciroap.org> Thanks for the suggestions and comments that you and others have made. By way of brief response, the survey had been posted to the list in plain text form several weeks earlier (prior to my becoming co- coordinator), and no comments had been received. But in any case I was in the difficult position of not having time to open it again for comments because I am travelling until 13 January and have very intermittent and expensive Internet access (I am sending this from my iPhone). I wanted to leave our options open to release something by 15 January, the deadline mentioned by Ginger, which meant opening the survey immediately and closing it just before my return. Even so, the deadline may be too close - we'll see. So I'm unable to modify the survey now, especially since we have a number of useful responses already. But I do encourage you to make full use of the "other" option, to ignore the explanations of the questions if they offend you, and to post any thoughts that don't fit into the survey to the list. PS. You are correct that questions phrased like "Is such-and-such the case?" should be interpreted as "Should it be the case?" - we are imagining an ideal IGF. On 27-Dec-2009, at 1:27 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Jeremy Malcolm, > It is my first time to communicate with you. > First of all please accept my heartily congratulation on becoming > coordinator. > I am looking and reading different discussion regarding the IGF > reformation of IGF and objections on the On-line Survey. > Some of them may be are good suggestions with in the discussion and > criticism. > > But what I understand that your survey is going to be criticised to > make it disputed and to declare that it has loose its importance at > the end of the day. I suggest you to remain as strong as you are > being reflected by replying following answers. > You may declare to the members list that once we obtain the survey > results, we will continue discussion on it to finalise the opinions, > and if found necessary may conduct next step of the survey. > > Do not change the moto and theme of your initiative which you have > taken. {You can just make some minor corrections into the questions > for example if one member has objection on ....."How is the MAG > selected", instead of changing the basic theme of your question as > per her advise, just make the necessary changes like this "How > should the MAG selected". (only replace "is" with "should").} > > By the may I ask one question, what the MAG is looking for? or Why > MAG is chasing to reform the IGF? This job of the reformation of the > IGF should be initiate through the founders of the IGF, who was the > Secretary-General of the United Nations. Advisory Group which is > known ad MAG now. has to follow the given the mandate of United > Nations instead of starting reformation of the IGF. > Please guide me. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > [ICANNians since Seoul 36th ICANN Meeting] > [+92-300-4130617] > From: Jeremy Malcolm > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Fouad > Bajwa > Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Ginger > Paque > Sent: Fri, 25 December, 2009 15:57:55 > Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > On 24-Dec-2009, at 10:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be > restricted > > to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the > surveyed > > to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound > to a > > specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be > > restricted to pre-defined answers. > > If you choose "other" then a text box to do that will magically > appear. If your thoughts are too extensive for the text box, please > post them to the list. > > > 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? > > sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to > > find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in > > general apart from the IGF structure. > > They are just my opinions. You can feel free to ignore them. They > are just intended to clarify the questions but they are not part of > the questions. > > > 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of > > MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't > > representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual > > consensus to the IGF secretariat. > > Please raise any additional issues here. The survey is just a tool, > but not meant to replace list discussion. > > > Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the > > process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for > > renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three > > member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups > > than run a nomination process through their own determined > procedures > > after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then > > forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary > General > > to select > > However, arguably this works better for governments - whose every > nomination is accepted - and less well for civil society. If you > want to be considered at all, you have to go through the IGC or > ISOC, and even then not all such nominations are accepted. What > criteria are used to decide which are accepted and which rejected? > We don't know. > > So, in answering the survey, you might decide that a more open, > transparent and democratic process would be a good idea. Or you > might decide the current "black box" process works just fine. > > > Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating > > multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the > interests > > of that multistakeholder group. > > I agree. That's not how it is at present. The option "represent > their stakeholder group" in the survey covers this (or if you think > it doesn't, choose "Other" and write your preferred wording). > > > These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should > > first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a > survey > > to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few > > weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC > > statements and those should be brought forward as they had a > detailed > > amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was > that > > we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to > which > > you had also extensively contributed. > > It will be based on discussions on this list too; the raw output > from the survey will not be sent outside the IGC. However, it is a > more efficient way to get a broad outline of the group's views. > Until now, nobody had responded to the 20 questions I had posted to > the list. Now, we are well on the way to getting a good number of > responses. :-) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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