From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Feb 1 01:34:35 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 08:34:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I'd like to echo Parminder and Guru's comments. What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health management, support for local education and locally based training, environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service providers. The global financial crisis has created an opening and opportunity for bold thinking and initiatives from Civil Society among others and it is I think incumbent on CS to move into that opening in the IGF among other venues. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: January-31-09 6:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK >So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the two different cases: >1) All the people, even those who can't afford it >2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road I guess what Guru really has been trying to point out through a couple of emails on 'universal Internet' is that the IGF, as a global public policy forum is really not being able to lead the way, as such forums - especially those that give an important role to civil society - are expected to do. Governments are doing it before the IGF is as much as able to even mention/articulate it. I remember with some amusement the discussion in May 2008 when IGF agenda was being framed whereby there was such, almost overwhelming reservations about words like 'universal' and universalisation' . The overall theme 'Internet for all' came because of some special efforts by the host country. However, despite this overall theme, I do not remember any discussion at all during the IGF which seriously addressed any such 'universalisation' policy options and alternatives as are now coming out from some governments. One is not sure if the IGF is not able to discuss and articulate real and pressing Internet public policy issues - and these are actively stone-walled - what exactly is it doing. It is time we gave up, 'lets be cautious and nurture a budding organization' logic before it is too late. IGF will loose its relevance if it does not not act soon to pick up the most crucial public policy issues of the day, and discusses them in complete earnest, and also tries to figure out and show some real possible way forward. That needs to be the central axis for IGF reform or realignment, whatever you call it, in this year of IGF review. The same story of dragging feet on 'universalisation of the Internet' may now be shown on the 'network neutrality' or the 'openness of the Internet' issue - not in its generic 'good thing' meaning, but in its specific policy implications for making policy choices that face all of us 'today'. In default what happens is as follows: While governments of the North are increasingly recognizing broadband as a key social infrastructure, which requires a 'rights based approach', their prescription to the South through their donor programs etc is still very much in a different cast - of the dominant ICTs for development model which takes a arms-length approach to public investments in digital infrastructure. IGF would have been the natural place to seek development of a common global outlook and vision in this area. However while the Commission on Science and Technology for Development clearly recognized, and centrally dealt with the fact, that the nature of the digital divide has changed, making broadband as a central policy issue, the IGF (though with the nominal theme of an 'Internet for all') mostly only dealt with mobile phones (a good amount of the reason for this is obviously ideological). Now, on Network Neutrality issue rather than get into the meat of this most important Internet policy issue, we may be expected to wait till some dominant governments already set both the basic framework of the issue, and possibly policy guidelines, and then we can try and build the capacity of developing countries on how to best follow those guidelines and principles. One does hope that the IGC and other civil society groups are able to take some clearer, and more energetic, position on (1) the process and format of the IGF, including its readiness to pick up the most important public policy issues of the day, do an honest and open discussion, and seek to help us move forward, and (2) help the IGF pick up the most important policy issues. This will be important for maintaining the relevance and legitimacy of the IGC/ other CS bodies in this area, as the overall issue if important for the continued relevance and legitimacy of the IGF itself. Apologies for this long posting. Parminder Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4982AF97.5070606 at itforchange.net>, at 13:13:19 on Fri, 30 > Jan 2009, Guru writes >> We have been hearing about the US Gov (FCC) plans to provide >> broadband to all in the US, now there is a similar news item ... >> quote " We know that every aspect of our lives in local communities - >> every school, every hospital, every workplace and even every home - >> will be dependent on the services that the digital network provides." > > Some of the homes can only realistically be reached by mobile (ie 3G) > broadband. Therefore a major reason for the initiative being > 'restricted' to "only" 2MB is because that's the highest speed that > it's prudent to promise for such a connection. > >> (though the report has been criticised by UK opposition for 'not >> doing enough!!')... > > That's because they think it's taking too long to make the decision to > go ahead. This latest announcement is in effect "we plan to announce > something later in the year" not "this is our announcement of what > will happen". But it's still a step in the right direction. > > And they see advertisements on TV for 50Mbps broadband, and read > overoptimistic reports that "everyone in country $foo already has > gigabit fibre to the home" and think 2Mbps is too slow (but see above). > > So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the > two different cases: > > 1) All the people, even those who can't afford it > 2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Feb 1 03:39:43 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:39:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK References: Message-ID: <3CF36C3C07554905A8EA9D68D715F7F4@PCbureau> Dear all I fully agree with Parminder's and Guru's comments, as well as with Michael's complement. IGF didn't « address any such universalsation policy options and alternatives » and is not able to do this. Not to be forgotten : Internet (broadband) access in DCs is the biggest point and the most difficult to achieve. That was also missed by the succcessive IGFs. However, these issues are subject of the WSIS follow-up process through different Action Lines, and these are dealt with in separate meetings, I mean mainly the annual CSTD's meetings in May. For these "universalisation" issues to be thoroughly addressed, we need to link both processes, IGF and WSIS (CSTD) follow-up. That's why I recently proposed to establish a "common entity" for IG and WSIS follow-up on a regional level for Europe, instead of a "European IGF" planned by the European Parliament. Such an entity should be "bicephalous" : one sub-group being devoted to IG and constituting a "regional IGF" body, whereas a second group handles the WSIS follow-up, line per line or through agregated main action themes. A third part of this entity should be a "bureau" or a coordinating group assuming among others the coordination of the activities of both sub-groups and the necessary relations and links with the different regional institutions (including UN ones). In my opinion, such regional entities are the only relevant response to the decentralised WSIS follow-up as it is set up in the official WSIS documents. But, another transversal issue of paramount importance is financing. There is a "discreet silence" even on our CS mailing lists on this question, not to mention the ITU, Unesco and UNDP documents. Therefore, I'd suggest to set-up a specific sub-group in charge of financing aspects in each region or country where an IGF is working or to be established, or added to the regional entity such as described previously. Of course there may be objections that such bodies are complicated to set-up and to be operated, but if we are conscious of the issues at stake and of their strong interaction, there is hardly another way for going ahead. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gurstein" To: ; "'Parminder'" Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK I'd like to echo Parminder and Guru's comments. What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health management, support for local education and locally based training, environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service providers. The global financial crisis has created an opening and opportunity for bold thinking and initiatives from Civil Society among others and it is I think incumbent on CS to move into that opening in the IGF among other venues. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: January-31-09 6:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK >So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the two different cases: >1) All the people, even those who can't afford it >2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road I guess what Guru really has been trying to point out through a couple of emails on 'universal Internet' is that the IGF, as a global public policy forum is really not being able to lead the way, as such forums - especially those that give an important role to civil society - are expected to do. Governments are doing it before the IGF is as much as able to even mention/articulate it. I remember with some amusement the discussion in May 2008 when IGF agenda was being framed whereby there was such, almost overwhelming reservations about words like 'universal' and universalisation' . The overall theme 'Internet for all' came because of some special efforts by the host country. However, despite this overall theme, I do not remember any discussion at all during the IGF which seriously addressed any such 'universalisation' policy options and alternatives as are now coming out from some governments. One is not sure if the IGF is not able to discuss and articulate real and pressing Internet public policy issues - and these are actively stone-walled - what exactly is it doing. It is time we gave up, 'lets be cautious and nurture a budding organization' logic before it is too late. IGF will loose its relevance if it does not not act soon to pick up the most crucial public policy issues of the day, and discusses them in complete earnest, and also tries to figure out and show some real possible way forward. That needs to be the central axis for IGF reform or realignment, whatever you call it, in this year of IGF review. The same story of dragging feet on 'universalisation of the Internet' may now be shown on the 'network neutrality' or the 'openness of the Internet' issue - not in its generic 'good thing' meaning, but in its specific policy implications for making policy choices that face all of us 'today'. In default what happens is as follows: While governments of the North are increasingly recognizing broadband as a key social infrastructure, which requires a 'rights based approach', their prescription to the South through their donor programs etc is still very much in a different cast - of the dominant ICTs for development model which takes a arms-length approach to public investments in digital infrastructure. IGF would have been the natural place to seek development of a common global outlook and vision in this area. However while the Commission on Science and Technology for Development clearly recognized, and centrally dealt with the fact, that the nature of the digital divide has changed, making broadband as a central policy issue, the IGF (though with the nominal theme of an 'Internet for all') mostly only dealt with mobile phones (a good amount of the reason for this is obviously ideological). Now, on Network Neutrality issue rather than get into the meat of this most important Internet policy issue, we may be expected to wait till some dominant governments already set both the basic framework of the issue, and possibly policy guidelines, and then we can try and build the capacity of developing countries on how to best follow those guidelines and principles. One does hope that the IGC and other civil society groups are able to take some clearer, and more energetic, position on (1) the process and format of the IGF, including its readiness to pick up the most important public policy issues of the day, do an honest and open discussion, and seek to help us move forward, and (2) help the IGF pick up the most important policy issues. This will be important for maintaining the relevance and legitimacy of the IGC/ other CS bodies in this area, as the overall issue if important for the continued relevance and legitimacy of the IGF itself. Apologies for this long posting. Parminder Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4982AF97.5070606 at itforchange.net>, at 13:13:19 on Fri, 30 > Jan 2009, Guru writes >> We have been hearing about the US Gov (FCC) plans to provide >> broadband to all in the US, now there is a similar news item ... >> quote " We know that every aspect of our lives in local communities - >> every school, every hospital, every workplace and even every home - >> will be dependent on the services that the digital network provides." > > Some of the homes can only realistically be reached by mobile (ie 3G) > broadband. Therefore a major reason for the initiative being > 'restricted' to "only" 2MB is because that's the highest speed that > it's prudent to promise for such a connection. > >> (though the report has been criticised by UK opposition for 'not >> doing enough!!')... > > That's because they think it's taking too long to make the decision to > go ahead. This latest announcement is in effect "we plan to announce > something later in the year" not "this is our announcement of what > will happen". But it's still a step in the right direction. > > And they see advertisements on TV for 50Mbps broadband, and read > overoptimistic reports that "everyone in country $foo already has > gigabit fibre to the home" and think 2Mbps is too slow (but see above). > > So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the > two different cases: > > 1) All the people, even those who can't afford it > 2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Feb 1 16:21:08 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:21:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 08:34:35 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the >simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the >parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling >of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community >focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health >management, support for local education and locally based training, >environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in >Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service >providers. The *universal* access of which I spoke, relates only to the remaining 10% of the population that telcos find too expensive to service using normal commercial rules. Governments mandating that they *do* service these customers (at the same price as the easy 90%) doesn't sound much like a "gift" to those telcos. -- 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 cave at rand.org Sun Feb 1 17:12:01 2009 From: cave at rand.org (Cave, Jonathan) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:12:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK Message-ID: <85899907E1E609449CF4FB774F4DBF7BC5C272@smmail12.rand.org> It depends on the quid pro quo. If BB for all means infrastructure paid out of public funds, it is potentially a gift to all telcos. If paid by a univ svce fund or regulatory relief, it's a gift to the most-regulated telco, and raises competition concerns. But if the assumption that universal BB unlocks net economic gains (including ways to mobilise the economic power of those newly-connected), it is a gift from society to itself. J. ----- Original Message ----- From: ecsae at mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk To: Cave, Jonathan Sent: Sun Feb 01 17:08:33 2009 Subject: Fw: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:21:08 To: Subject: Re: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In message , at 08:34:35 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the >simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the >parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling >of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community >focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health >management, support for local education and locally based training, >environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in >Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service >providers. The *universal* access of which I spoke, relates only to the remaining 10% of the population that telcos find too expensive to service using normal commercial rules. Governments mandating that they *do* service these customers (at the same price as the easy 90%) doesn't sound much like a "gift" to those telcos. -- 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 __________________________________________________________________________ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Feb 1 15:44:30 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:44:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: <3CF36C3C07554905A8EA9D68D715F7F4@PCbureau> References: <3CF36C3C07554905A8EA9D68D715F7F4@PCbureau> Message-ID: <+MWNV9cumghJFAhF@perry.co.uk> In message <3CF36C3C07554905A8EA9D68D715F7F4 at PCbureau>, at 09:39:43 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, jlfullsack writes >That's why I recently proposed to establish a "common entity" for IG >and WSIS follow-up on a regional level for Europe, instead of a >"European IGF" planned by the European Parliament. Apparently the "European IGF" has been cancelled because there are no funds available. Instead, they are hoping to arrange a substitute event in Brussels as a regular [combined] hearing of the relevant Parliamentary committees, extended to a full day. After that, it's pretty inevitable that the election will disrupt the normal flow of business for much of the rest of the year, leading up to the IGF. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 1 18:41:48 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:41:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review Message-ID: <13457C9E8C4348AC85D53F4CDD754495@IAN> I'm looking here to finalise our comments on the IGF review process, which will be delivered in spoken form at the February consultation. I will post separately for comments a draft statement on the role and mandate of IGF. However, before finalising the summary of what I think we have agreed on to date, let me add another thought and see if it has general support here or not - if not, we can go with what is below which we have largely agreed to already. I believe there will be widespread opposition to an outside consultancy making specific recommendations as an independent body for stakeholders to accept or reject. Rather, I believe the outside consultancy is necessary only to provide a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, providing a structured methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. I believe such a study is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. I do not think the outside consultancy should make independent recommendations however. I believe it should present its findings to either MAG or some other specifically tasked multistakeholder committee managing the review, with the multistakeholder body being tasked with making appropriate recommendations based on the findings. That sits better for me as a methodology and way forward. Interested in whether IGC would like to propose something along these lines. Draft follows Process of review (without inclusion of this specific suggestion) As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do an expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 1 18:44:53 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:44:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement for comments - IGF review - IGF mandate, role and structure Message-ID: Below is a suggested draft for a verbal statement on IGF mandate role ad structure for the February consultations. Comments please! The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Feb 1 23:18:24 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:48:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> Basically MG is suggesting (and I agree with him) that 'internet for all' means actual ability of people to use the internet and that needs to go far beyond 'access' if that only implies putting some infrastructure in place. There are several obstacles/constraints to people using the internet and non availability of infrastructure is only one (albeit perhaps the first constraint that needs to be tackled)... this includes social constraints (women not being able to access internet points due to patriarchal pressures is one example), individual capacities - including literacy, the lack of which means that most of the text based internet is not accessible (though we have far more av content now), 'surround infrastructure' including power backups, robust hardware, relevant applications and content etc etc. Just as 'education for all' means much more than building schools and classrooms, though that is certainly an important starting point ... in India for e.g. the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (the national program which has education for all as its basic goal) has programs which look at free text books and learning material, free uniforms, free meals for children, bicycles for girls .. without these elements, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of children would not be able to go to school and universal education would remain a dream. However, with these measures ('affirmative action'), enrollment has risen from around 70% a decade back to over 95% today. In the same way, Internet for all, requires several measures (global and national public policy) .... and creating the infrastructure is one of them. I am not suggesting that 'freebies' is the only way to go, but we need to look at different options and see which have a good chance of ensuring meaningful access and use. As I suggested earlier, education in todays world has to necessarily include acquiring capacities to navigate the information society that the internet is 'creating' and in this sense, 'right to education', which is part of the UNDHR, subsumes a 'right to the internet'. Also Roland, the '90:10' ratio may be true in some places, but in most parts of the world is likely to be more around 50:50 or even 20:80 ..... suggesting even greater requirement of global efforts including those relating to public policy. Guru Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 08:34:35 on > Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >> What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that >> the >> simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the >> parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, >> enabling >> of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community >> focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health >> management, support for local education and locally based training, >> environmental management and so on... In the absence of these >> investments in >> Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service >> providers. > > The *universal* access of which I spoke, relates only to the remaining > 10% of the population that telcos find too expensive to service using > normal commercial rules. Governments mandating that they *do* service > these customers (at the same price as the easy 90%) doesn't sound much > like a "gift" to those telcos. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://India.IS-Watch.net http://IS-Watch.net http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations' Economic and Social Council* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From MMKovary at aol.com Sun Feb 1 23:56:30 2009 From: MMKovary at aol.com (MMKovary at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:56:30 EST Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK Message-ID: May I add to the comments made here by Guru that "accessibility" also must include access to the internet for all persons with all types of disabilities. Myra Kovary, M.L.A. _mmk29 at cornell.edu_ (mailto:mmk29 at cornell.edu) -- A UN Representative to the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities from MindFreedom International -- A member of the International Disability Alliance CRPD Forum -- A member of the International Disability Caucus -- A member of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry -- A moderator and founding member of the new listserv for the International Network of Women With Disabilities In a message dated 2/1/2009 11:19:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, guru at itforchange.net writes: Basically MG is suggesting (and I agree with him) that 'internet for all' means actual ability of people to use the internet and that needs to go far beyond 'access' if that only implies putting some infrastructure in place. There are several obstacles/constraints to people using the internet and non availability of infrastructure is only one (albeit perhaps the first constraint that needs to be tackled)... this includes social constraints (women not being able to access internet points due to patriarchal pressures is one example), individual capacities - including literacy, the lack of which means that most of the text based internet is not accessible (though we have far more av content now), 'surround infrastructure' including power backups, robust hardware, relevant applications and content etc etc. Just as 'education for all' means much more than building schools and classrooms, though that is certainly an important starting point ... in India for e.g. the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (the national program which has education for all as its basic goal) has programs which look at free text books and learning material, free uniforms, free meals for children, bicycles for girls .. without these elements, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of children would not be able to go to school and universal education would remain a dream. However, with these measures ('affirmative action'), enrollment has risen from around 70% a decade back to over 95% today. In the same way, Internet for all, requires several measures (global and national public policy) .... and creating the infrastructure is one of them. I am not suggesting that 'freebies' is the only way to go, but we need to look at different options and see which have a good chance of ensuring meaningful access and use. As I suggested earlier, education in todays world has to necessarily include acquiring capacities to navigate the information society that the internet is 'creating' and in this sense, 'right to education', which is part of the UNDHR, subsumes a 'right to the internet'. Also Roland, the '90:10' ratio may be true in some places, but in most parts of the world is likely to be more around 50:50 or even 20:80 ..... suggesting even greater requirement of global efforts including those relating to public policy. Guru Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:34:35 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein __ (mailto:gurstein at gmail.com) writes What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health management, support for local education and locally based training, environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service providers. The *universal* access of which I spoke, relates only to the remaining 10% of the population that telcos find too expensive to service using normal commercial rules. Governments mandating that they *do* service these customers (at the same price as the easy 90%) doesn't sound much like a "gift" to those telcos. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 _www.ITforChange.net_ (http://www.itforchange.net/) _http://Public-Software.in_ (http://public-software.in/) _http://India.IS-Watch.net_ (http://india.is-watch.net/) _http://IS-Watch.net_ (http://is-watch.net/) _http://content-commons.in_ (http://content-commons.in/) *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance **************Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your credit score. (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 2 04:04:08 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:04:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Roland, "The simple provision of Broadband access" of which I wrote wasn't meant to refer only to the UK case of which I know very little, but rather to the overall inclusion of Broadband as an element in the variety of infrastructure supports which are being included in economic recovery packages in various jurisdictions such as Canada and the US (among I'm assuming others such as that of the UK... Best to all, MBG -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: February-01-09 11:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In message , at 08:34:35 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that >the simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without >the parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, >enabling of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and >community focussed applications development (as for example in the area >of health management, support for local education and locally based >training, environmental management and so on... In the absence of these >investments in Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or >other service providers. The *universal* access of which I spoke, relates only to the remaining 10% of the population that telcos find too expensive to service using normal commercial rules. Governments mandating that they *do* service these customers (at the same price as the easy 90%) doesn't sound much like a "gift" to those telcos. -- 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 Mon Feb 2 02:31:45 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 07:31:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: <85899907E1E609449CF4FB774F4DBF7BC5C272@smmail12.rand.org> References: <85899907E1E609449CF4FB774F4DBF7BC5C272@smmail12.rand.org> Message-ID: In message <85899907E1E609449CF4FB774F4DBF7BC5C272 at smmail12.rand.org>, at 14:12:01 on Sun, 1 Feb 2009, "Cave, Jonathan" writes >It depends on the quid pro quo. If BB for all means infrastructure paid >out of public funds, it is potentially a gift to all telcos. If paid by >a univ svce fund or regulatory relief, it's a gift to the >most-regulated telco, and raises competition concerns. The Universal Service obligation is rarely welcomed by the telco, irrespective of where the funding comes from. The worst place is existing subscribers, because the telco has to explain why the bills are going up. Most organisations prefer to harvest the "low hanging fruit", the complete opposite of Universal Service. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Feb 2 02:28:01 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 07:28:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> In message <49867410.5000106 at itforchange.net>, at 09:48:24 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Guru writes >As I suggested earlier, education in todays world has to necessarily >include acquiring capacities to navigate the information society that >the internet is 'creating' and in this sense, 'right to education', >which is part of the UNDHR, subsumes a 'right to the internet'. If you are suggesting that Internet is *essential* in order to provide education (and therefore a right to education includes a right to Internet) then I must disagree with you. But I *can* agree that [electrical] power, PCs/software and some education (which includes educating the family to permit all family members to use the access, as well as basic literacy) are necessary to access the Internet. >Also Roland, the '90:10' ratio may be true in some places, but in most >parts of the world is likely to be more around 50:50 or even 20:80 >..... suggesting even greater requirement of global efforts including >those relating to public policy. If the ratio is below [approx] 90:10 (which it's obvious is the case in mush of the world), then it is still possible (and right and proper) to have an ambition to extend access to the Internet. But don't call it "Universal Service", because that's a regulatory concept, which requires the situation where the many can subsidise the few. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Feb 2 04:38:54 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:38:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 11:04:08 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >"The simple provision of Broadband access" of which I wrote wasn't meant to >refer only to the UK case of which I know very little And I was only using the UK case to illustrate what the expression "Universal Service" means, in Europe anyway. -- 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 ginger at paque.net Mon Feb 2 06:27:30 2009 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:57:30 -0430 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward Message-ID: We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February. Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. -----Mensaje original----- De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have been in discussion on the list. I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC statement “Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt”  is copied below for your reference): The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other.  Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. I look forward to your ideas on this. Regards, Ginger IGC previous statement: Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet  One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right   to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society.  The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming  increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned.  These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 07:31:10 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:31:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement for comments - IGF review - IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi Ian, I agree the following appreciation. *We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management.* So It will be very important for all UN system to be involved deeply in to acheive Geneva Action Plan and Tunis Agenda. till now there is some discordance in UN system to support local ,national ICT initiatives in global developement project , specially in some africa countries like DR Congo, Republic of Centrafrica, Sao Tome,Tchad... About cybercriminality, african countries have a different view and the debate is not enough in all level. Baudouin 2009/2/2 Ian Peter > Below is a suggested draft for a verbal statement on IGF mandate role ad > structure for the February consultations. Comments please! > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 07:36:12 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:36:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <13457C9E8C4348AC85D53F4CDD754495@IAN> References: <13457C9E8C4348AC85D53F4CDD754495@IAN> Message-ID: the next IGF will be held in africa and opporunity is given to mobilize africa actors to participate actively in all process till to forum on november. So, africa civil society must play a major role in this process. Baudouin 2009/2/2 Ian Peter > I'm looking here to finalise our comments on the IGF review process, > which will be delivered in spoken form at the February consultation. I will > post separately for comments a draft statement on the role and mandate of > IGF. > > > > However, before finalising the summary of what I think we have agreed on to > date, let me add another thought and see if it has general support here or > not – if not, we can go with what is below which we have largely agreed to > already. > > > > I believe there will be widespread opposition to an outside consultancy > making specific recommendations as an independent body for stakeholders to > accept or reject. Rather, I believe the outside consultancy is necessary > only to provide a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, providing a > structured methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. I > believe such a study is important to the credibility and the usefulness of > the IGF review. > > > > I do not think the outside consultancy should make independent > recommendations however. I believe it should present its findings to either > MAG or some other specifically tasked multistakeholder committee managing > the review, with the multistakeholder body being tasked with making > appropriate recommendations based on the findings. > > > > That sits better for me as a methodology and way forward. Interested in > whether IGC would like to propose something along these lines. > > > > Draft follows > > Process of review (without inclusion of this specific suggestion) > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do an expert evaluation to help the process of > review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to > rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such > a politically sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Mon Feb 2 07:51:19 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:21:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] right to internet subsumed within right to education In-Reply-To: <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> I did not say that "Internet is *essential* in order to provide education" as the argument to subsume right to internet within right to education. My submission is - in todays world, unless a person understands how to use the internet and benefit from it/participate in it, his/her ability to navigate society in a way as to maximise his potential including availing his rights and fulfulling his responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy will be significantly affected. The basic aim of education is to enable the learner to be able to navigate society in this manner (see John Dewey on education and democracy for more details of this reasoning). In this sense, the right to internet is subsumed within the right to education. regards Guru Roland Perry wrote: > In message <49867410.5000106 at itforchange.net>, at 09:48:24 on Mon, 2 > Feb 2009, Guru writes >> As I suggested earlier, education in todays world has to necessarily >> include acquiring capacities to navigate the information society that >> the internet is 'creating' and in this sense, 'right to education', >> which is part of the UNDHR, subsumes a 'right to the internet'. > > If you are suggesting that Internet is *essential* in order to provide > education (and therefore a right to education includes a right to > Internet) then I must disagree with you. > > But I *can* agree that [electrical] power, PCs/software and some > education (which includes educating the family to permit all family > members to use the access, as well as basic literacy) are necessary to > access the Internet. > >> Also Roland, the '90:10' ratio may be true in some places, but in >> most parts of the world is likely to be more around 50:50 or even >> 20:80 ..... suggesting even greater requirement of global efforts >> including those relating to public policy. > > If the ratio is below [approx] 90:10 (which it's obvious is the case > in mush of the world), then it is still possible (and right and > proper) to have an ambition to extend access to the Internet. But > don't call it "Universal Service", because that's a regulatory > concept, which requires the situation where the many can subsidise the > few. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://India.IS-Watch.net http://IS-Watch.net http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations' Economic and Social Council* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 2 08:00:11 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:30:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF@unog.ch on Facebook In-Reply-To: <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <40F39F0359E5479E9FD297C4D6448404@GINGERLAPTOP> The IGF is trying to make itself more accessible and "user friendly". One of the new tools being used is Facebook. I won't send out invitations, or suggestions to anyone, because everyone has their own ideas about Facebook, but I suggest you consider adding IGF at unog.ch as a friend, as a way to support, promote, inform and communicate about the IGF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Feb 3 06:03:11 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:03:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dates of WSIS Cluster of events in 2009? Message-ID: Hi all, Does anyone know what are the dates of the 2009 WSIS cluster of events in Geneva? It should be in May, around the 17th, but I would need to know the exact dates. From previous information sent on this list, it seems that the following dates are already scheduled: - 13 May: Open IGF consultation - 14-15 May: MAG meeting - 17 May: World Telecom and InfSoc Day What about the follow-up action lines? Thanks in advance for your quick reply. Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Tel. +33(0)144749239 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Feb 3 06:28:24 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:28:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] right to Internet subsumed within right to In-Reply-To: <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20090203112836.58FE7E12FB@smtp3.electricembers.net> Why not! Internet can be an essential tool to provide education and knowledge development. However, you are right in your last statement. Internet should not be put within just some 'rights', as it is an emerging technology and awaits much more out of it for the next generation. Internet can be utilized to advance our society for the next stage of development. But, in the context of education and knowledge acquisition, Internet is a phenomena. Best regards, Hakik At 12:51 PM 2/2/2009, Guru wrote: >I did not say that "Internet is *essential* in order to provide >education" as the argument to subsume right to internet within right >to education. > >My submission is - in todays world, unless a person understands how >to use the internet and benefit from it/participate in it, his/her >ability to navigate society in a way as to maximise his potential >including availing his rights and fulfulling his responsibilities as >a citizen of a democracy will be significantly affected. The basic >aim of education is to enable the learner to be able to navigate >society in this manner (see John Dewey on education and democracy >for more details of this reasoning). In this sense, the right to >internet is subsumed within the right to education. > >regards >Guru > >Roland Perry wrote: >>In message >><49867410.5000106 at itforchange.net>, >>at 09:48:24 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Guru >> writes >>>As I suggested earlier, education in todays world has to >>>necessarily include acquiring capacities to navigate the >>>information society that the internet is 'creating' and in this >>>sense, 'right to education', which is part of the UNDHR, subsumes >>>a 'right to the internet'. >> >>If you are suggesting that Internet is *essential* in order to >>provide education (and therefore a right to education includes a >>right to Internet) then I must disagree with you. >> >>But I *can* agree that [electrical] power, PCs/software and some >>education (which includes educating the family to permit all family >>members to use the access, as well as basic literacy) are necessary >>to access the Internet. >> >>>Also Roland, the '90:10' ratio may be true in some places, but in >>>most parts of the world is likely to be more around 50:50 or even >>>20:80 ..... suggesting even greater requirement of global efforts >>>including those relating to public policy. >> >>If the ratio is below [approx] 90:10 (which it's obvious is the >>case in mush of the world), then it is still possible (and right >>and proper) to have an ambition to extend access to the Internet. >>But don't call it "Universal Service", because that's a regulatory >>concept, which requires the situation where the many can subsidise the few. > > >-- >Gurumurthy Kasinathan >IT for Change >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel:98454 37730 >www.ITforChange.net >http://Public-Software.in >http://India.IS-Watch.net >http://IS-Watch.net >http://content-commons.in >*IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United >Nations' Economic and Social Council* >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Feb 3 06:33:46 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:33:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement for comments - IGF review - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090203113357.2DA45E1328@smtp3.electricembers.net> No comments, but support the text. Specially, the last paragraph is a wholesome one. Best regards, Hakik At 11:44 PM 2/1/2009, Ian Peter wrote: >Below is a suggested draft for a verbal statement on IGF mandate >role ad structure for the February consultations. Comments please! > >The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > >There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF >- first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for >multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > >Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the >IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or >the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to >improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > >It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the >more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring >it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > >Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >participative and democratic. > >We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF >should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to >carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public >interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN >organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Feb 3 07:07:27 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:07:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will focus on the Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may fill out a form attesting to their "proven interest in matters related to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in Information Society issues," and then staff will decide if they qualify. http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Feb 4 12:00:43 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:00:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> Thanks, Bill This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to attend the Forum during three days. What about the interworking procedures and possibilities, before, during and after the Lisbon meeting ? The ITU site only mentions "participation" ... A silent one ? As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at least, nothing new on the horizon ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" To: "Governance" Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > Hi, > > The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in the > World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will focus on the > Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may fill out a form > attesting to their "proven interest in matters related to the WTPF-09, > along with expertise and experience in Information Society issues," and > then staff will decide if they qualify. > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 4 12:15:21 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:15:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: right to internet subsumed within right to education In-Reply-To: <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> References: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net> <49867410.5000106@itforchange.net> <1xtfqDCBCqhJFACG@perry.co.uk> <4986EC47.3020109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9Ckt25Vp0ciJFA4e@perry.co.uk> In message <4986EC47.3020109 at itforchange.net>, at 18:21:19 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Guru writes >I did not say that "Internet is *essential* in order to provide >education" as the argument to subsume right to internet within right to >education. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "subsuming" rights. "To incorporate in a more comprehensive category". In other words, if there's a big category that says "Right to education", and you suggest that education requires Internet, then the "Right to Internet" becomes a subset of the established "right to education". But as I said before, although Internet is very useful to education (as is extensive world travel) it's not essential. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 5 09:56:13 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:56:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum In-Reply-To: <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> Message-ID: <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jean-Louis, You answered you own questions, no? Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're talking about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get involved... BD On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack wrote: > Thanks, Bill > > This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to attend the > Forum during three days. What about the interworking procedures and > possibilities, before, during and after the Lisbon meeting ? The ITU site > only mentions "participation" ... A silent one ? > > As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at least, nothing new > on the horizon ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" > > To: "Governance" > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > > >> Hi, >> >> The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in the World >> Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will focus on the >> Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may fill out a form attesting >> to their "proven interest in matters related to the WTPF-09, along with >> expertise and experience in Information Society issues," and then staff >> will decide if they qualify. >> >> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 for International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 5 10:05:27 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:05:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1233846327.8117.124.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Bill APC would be interested. Anriette On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:56 +0000, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jean-Louis, > > You answered you own questions, no? > > Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications > assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're > talking about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get > involved... > > BD > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack > wrote: > Thanks, Bill > > This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to > attend the Forum during three days. What about the > interworking procedures and possibilities, before, during and > after the Lisbon meeting ? The ITU site only mentions > "participation" ... A silent one ? > > As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at > least, nothing new on the horizon ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" > > To: "Governance" > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > > > > Hi, > > The ITU has decided how to handle civil society > participation in the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 > April in Lisbon, which will focus on the Internet, > NGN, and convergence. individuals may fill out a form > attesting to their "proven interest in matters related > to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in > Information Society issues," and then staff will > decide if they qualify. > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Feb 5 10:09:33 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:09:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch><1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau><2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> <1233846327.8117.124.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E4B@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> FYI, I will be in Lisbon for an NGN modeling and policy workshop with academics and Portuguese govt next week. If there is a specific IGC request/concern to relay to the Ministry of Sci Tech, which I believe is the host to WTPF, let me know. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Thu 2/5/2009 10:05 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Cc: jlfullsack Subject: Re: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum Dear Bill APC would be interested. Anriette On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:56 +0000, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jean-Louis, > > You answered you own questions, no? > > Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications > assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're > talking about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get > involved... > > BD > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack > wrote: > Thanks, Bill > > This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to > attend the Forum during three days. What about the > interworking procedures and possibilities, before, during and > after the Lisbon meeting ? The ITU site only mentions > "participation" ... A silent one ? > > As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at > least, nothing new on the horizon ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" > > To: "Governance" > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > > > > Hi, > > The ITU has decided how to handle civil society > participation in the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 > April in Lisbon, which will focus on the Internet, > NGN, and convergence. individuals may fill out a form > attesting to their "proven interest in matters related > to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in > Information Society issues," and then staff will > decide if they qualify. > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - ?executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 5 11:02:05 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:02:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <498B0D7D.4060208@wzb.eu> Hi Bill, do you think it would make sense to get involved in the World Telecom Policy Forum as a group/caucus? jeanette William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jean-Louis, > > You answered you own questions, no? > > Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications > assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're > talking about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get > involved... > > BD > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack > wrote: > > Thanks, Bill > > This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to > attend the Forum during three days. What about the interworking > procedures and possibilities, before, during and after the Lisbon > meeting ? The ITU site only mentions "participation" ... A silent one ? > > As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at least, > nothing new on the horizon ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" > > To: "Governance" > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > > > Hi, > > The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in > the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will > focus on the Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may > fill out a form attesting to their "proven interest in matters > related to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in > Information Society issues," and then staff will decide if they > qualify. > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 5 11:29:35 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:29:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> <498B0D7D.4060208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426829@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Oh yes. We should ake this very seriously. Can we discuss this also in geneva end of February? w ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Do 05.02.2009 17:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Betreff: Re: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum Hi Bill, do you think it would make sense to get involved in the World Telecom Policy Forum as a group/caucus? jeanette William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jean-Louis, > > You answered you own questions, no? > > Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications > assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're > talking about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get > involved... > > BD > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack > wrote: > > Thanks, Bill > > This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to > attend the Forum during three days. What about the interworking > procedures and possibilities, before, during and after the Lisbon > meeting ? The ITU site only mentions "participation" ... A silent one ? > > As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at least, > nothing new on the horizon ... > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" > > To: "Governance" > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum > > > > Hi, > > The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in > the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will > focus on the Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may > fill out a form attesting to their "proven interest in matters > related to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in > Information Society issues," and then staff will decide if they > qualify. > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 6 05:55:48 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:55:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum In-Reply-To: <498B0D7D.4060208@wzb.eu> References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> <498B0D7D.4060208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2bd6d7670902060255l59671985hddf05236b6005359@mail.gmail.com> Hi Je, Yes, I've been saying this for some time...? When 150+ governments (probably not the full ITU membership) get together to adopt resolutions and opinions on globally applicable public policy principles for the Internet, NGN and convergence, one would think the caucus would want to be engaged. Obviously, the way they've set things up, with "individual members of the general public" petitioning to be considered qualified enough to listen and then waiting for word on whether they can attend, poses some challenges to working as a group. But that's the way it is and I doubt it would change were IGC to write a letter saying why can't we just attend as observers like in other UN agencies or whatever. They are aware of the way its done elsewhere and this is what's been decided. So the foundational issue is to determine whether we can get a number of people to attend under the rules as they are, which is why it'd be good to know as a first step how many folks here are willing to apply and would be able to attend if accepted. Best, Bill On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Bill, > do you think it would make sense to get involved in the World Telecom > Policy Forum as a group/caucus? > jeanette > > > William Drake wrote: > >> >> Hi Jean-Louis, >> You answered you own questions, no? >> Is anyone here considering applying to have their qualifications >> assessed? While the process is unusual and a bit off putting, we're talking >> about an IG discussion in which all governments actually get involved... >> BD >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, jlfullsack > jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr>> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Bill >> >> This a WTPF specific arrangement for "qualified CS members" to >> attend the Forum during three days. What about the interworking >> procedures and possibilities, before, during and after the Lisbon >> meeting ? The ITU site only mentions "participation" ... A silent one ? >> >> As for CS inclusion in the ITU, in the WSIS framework at least, >> nothing new on the horizon ... >> >> Best >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" >> >> To: "Governance" > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:07 PM >> Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> The ITU has decided how to handle civil society participation in >> the World Telecom Policy Forum 22-24 April in Lisbon, which will >> focus on the Internet, NGN, and convergence. individuals may >> fill out a form attesting to their "proven interest in matters >> related to the WTPF-09, along with expertise and experience in >> Information Society issues," and then staff will decide if they >> qualify. >> >> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Feb 10 11:14:17 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:14:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Obama and Cybersecurity References: <85B51313-BB0A-43FF-B588-CE8E56F4552D@graduateinstitute.ch> <1267CF7B2D594168916B7869DE83275E@PCbureau> <2bd6d7670902050656x307de4acs396ee6fbe138f0b4@mail.gmail.com> <498B0D7D.4060208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842686F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902254.html?wpisrc=newsletter 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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 10 13:34:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:04:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670902100935qa3419c3hb5b6e8e8001f56cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <1541F69E-ED72-4DF5-A7AD-BE49F42A06FF@datos-personales.org> <2bd6d7670902100935qa3419c3hb5b6e8e8001f56cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Katitza, that we should be watching the development of the proposed At Large summit at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Mexico. The Summit objectives are: 4. Objectives 4.1. An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and advisory committees. 4.2. An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities therein. 4.3. Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. 4.4. An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. 4.5. A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN Although I find one of the "Deliverables" to be even more interesting: 5.5. Work on a "Individual Internet Users" declaration. (Both of the above citations are from https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/documents:20080214104609-1-21013/original/14%2002%202008%20Summit%20proposal%20and%20budget.pdf ) Does anyone have more information on the "Individual Internet Users" declaration? Any thoughts or opinions? Best, Ginger On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Katitza, > > The summit info is at > > https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?documents > > Best > > Bill > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < > katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > > > Dear all: > > > > The upcoming ICANN meeting will be held in Mexico City on 1-6 March. On > > February 28, 2009, > > there will be an At Large (Internet Users) Summit. > > http://mex.icann.org/ > > > > It would be nice that those involved in the Internet users summit could > > share with us its purpose, > > the agenda if there anything public, or any other information that might > be > > useful for the community to learn > > what is going on there. There are little information about the summit on > > the webpage. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Katitza Rodriguez > > _______________________________________________ > > Coalition mailing list > > Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > > > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org > > > > > > -- > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Coalition mailing list > Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Feb 10 21:23:46 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:23:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico Message-ID: <20090210192345.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.470294c953.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Wed Feb 11 01:45:58 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:45:58 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico In-Reply-To: <20090210192345.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.470294c953.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20090210192345.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.470294c953.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <200902111345.58474.nhklein@gmx.net> On Wednesday, 11 February 2009 09:23:46 Karl E. Peters wrote: > Ginger and all, >     There is currently an effort to organize a "Users" constituency to the > GNSO that meets strong resistance from many who are involved in a new > constituency for non-commercial domain name (SLD) owners. The person > coordinating both efforts on behalf of ICANN is Danny Younger, who deserves > a hearty thanks for a thankless job. Anyone wishing to learn more may join > the list for this effort or ask me if you need directions. Sincerely yours, > Karl E. Peters, President > Top Level Domain Association, Inc. >   >   > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico > From: Ginger Paque > Date: Tue, February 10, 2009 1:34 pm > To: I G List , Public Voice > > > I agree with Katitza, that we should be watching the development of the > proposed At Large summit at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Mexico. The > Summit objectives are: > > 4. Objectives > 4.1. An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact with > other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and advisory > committees. > 4.2. An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the issues > confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities therein. > 4.3. Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. > 4.4. An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, rather > than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. > 4.5. A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the timing > and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN > > Although I find one of the "Deliverables" to be even more interesting: > > 5.5. Work on a "Individual Internet Users" declaration. > > (Both of the above citations are from > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/documents:200802 >14104609-1-21013/original/14%2002%202008%20Summit%20proposal%20and%20budget. >pdf) > > Does anyone have more information on the "Individual Internet Users" > declaration? Any thoughts or opinions? > > Best, > Ginger Interesting – remembering the long history of discussions and decisions related to this field, I hope it will not ending in a dead end road because of a lack of clear definition of purpose – or better: of different purposes. Every person is also an "Individual Internet Users" – in addition to being a domain name seller, an ISP manager, a communications researcher etc. But until now, to focus on specific activities and concerns in ICANN, these “individuals” have found their place in the different “constituencies” according to specific task. Some individuals like myself found institutional and personal concerns well housed in the "Non-Commercial Users" constituency, other individuals have found their place within national At-Large structures, which are regionally clustered in RALOs, some individual businesspeople are in the "Commercial and Business Users" constituency of ICANN, etc. I am very much interested to know what a somewhat abstract "Individual Internet Users" declaration might be – if it is not a duplication of either the conceptual/functional or the national/regional groupings. In my understanding these relate on the one had to the existing constituencies, and on the other to the national and regional ALAC/RALO structures – but when it comes to “global, rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues” I am at a loss to clearly understand what it means – I sounds a little bit like a douplication of ICANN. When the first round of an At-Large Users registration process was going on – up to the ICANN Accra meeting 2002, if I remember correctly, it was an unstructured global process: every individual Internet user can participate, and every individual Internet user can be a candidate to be voted into whatever offices to be created. It was as if all the US citizens would vote for the president, where every citizen could also be a presidential candidate - without any sub-structures, any parties, with their chapters, and no primaries. This would obviously lead nowhere – and so an effort of clarification of purpose started, which led to the present arrangements: conceptual/programmatic/operational concerns for institutions (and "Individual Internet Users" in them) found there place in the different ICANN constituencies, while the concerns of the "Individual Internet Users" with national and regional concerns organized themselves in the ALAC/RALO structures. This is my understanding, developed over the years. And this why I do not yet see how an "Individual Internet Users" structure would define its specificity – without ending up in the same spiral as it happened after Accra. So I am looking forward to how this this discussion develops. Norbert Klein -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial: Not to Discuss Means Not to Clarify http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/not-to-discuss-means-not-to-clarify-sunday-822009/ (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Feb 11 07:56:08 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:56:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico In-Reply-To: References: <1541F69E-ED72-4DF5-A7AD-BE49F42A06FF@datos-personales.org> <2bd6d7670902100935qa3419c3hb5b6e8e8001f56cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4992CAE8.6050501@jacquelinemorris.com> hi ginger For the most up to date thinking and work on the Summit, including the final agenda etc, please take a look at the wiki - https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?at_large_summit_working_group Jacqueline Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Katitza, that we should be watching the development of > the proposed At Large summit at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Mexico. > The Summit objectives are: > > 4. Objectives > 4.1. An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact > with other ICANN constituencies, > supporting organisations and advisory committees. > 4.2. An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the > issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's > roles and responsibilities therein. > 4.3. Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. > 4.4. An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, > rather than merely regional, point of > view on ICANN-related issues. > 4.5. A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the > timing and framework of various > issues currently confronting ICANN > > Although I find one of the "Deliverables" to be even more interesting: > > 5.5. Work on a "Individual Internet Users" declaration. > > (Both of the above citations are from > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/documents:20080214104609-1-21013/original/14%2002%202008%20Summit%20proposal%20and%20budget.pdf) > > Does anyone have more information on the "Individual Internet Users" > declaration? Any thoughts or opinions? > > Best, > Ginger > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi Katitza, > > The summit info is at > > https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?documents > > Best > > Bill > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < > katitza at datos-personales.org > > wrote: > > > Dear all: > > > > The upcoming ICANN meeting will be held in Mexico City on 1-6 > March. On > > February 28, 2009, > > there will be an At Large (Internet Users) Summit. > > http://mex.icann.org/ > > > > It would be nice that those involved in the Internet users > summit could > > share with us its purpose, > > the agenda if there anything public, or any other information > that might be > > useful for the community to learn > > what is going on there. There are little information about the > summit on > > the webpage. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Katitza Rodriguez > > _______________________________________________ > > Coalition mailing list > > Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > > > > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org > > > > > > -- > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Coalition mailing list > Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.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 Feb 11 08:07:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:37:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico In-Reply-To: <4992CAE8.6050501@jacquelinemorris.com> References: <1541F69E-ED72-4DF5-A7AD-BE49F42A06FF@datos-personales.org> <2bd6d7670902100935qa3419c3hb5b6e8e8001f56cf@mail.gmail.com> <4992CAE8.6050501@jacquelinemorris.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Jacqueline, for this link. Milton Mueller also posted this on the Coalition (PV) list, which I think will be very helpful, particularly for those of us who do not have a technical background, or a good understanding of how ICANN works. Because for me the IGF process is very important, I need to reminde myself to keep watching the other important processes in IG. Don't know if this happens to others as well... Excerpt from Milton's post to the Coalition List: "A new blog series underway at the Internet Governance Project explains the significance of the reforms underway in ICANN especially as they affect civil society participation. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/6/4083962.html " 2009/2/11 Jacqueline A. Morris > hi ginger > For the most up to date thinking and work on the Summit, including the > final agenda etc, please take a look at the wiki - > https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?at_large_summit_working_group > > Jacqueline > Ginger Paque wrote: > >> I agree with Katitza, that we should be watching the development of the >> proposed At Large summit at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Mexico. The Summit >> objectives are: >> >> 4. Objectives >> 4.1. An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact with >> other ICANN constituencies, >> supporting organisations and advisory committees. >> 4.2. An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the issues >> confronting ICANN and ICANN's >> roles and responsibilities therein. >> 4.3. Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. >> 4.4. An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, >> rather than merely regional, point of >> view on ICANN-related issues. >> 4.5. A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the timing >> and framework of various >> issues currently confronting ICANN >> >> Although I find one of the "Deliverables" to be even more interesting: >> >> 5.5. Work on a "Individual Internet Users" declaration. >> >> (Both of the above citations are from >> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/documents:20080214104609-1-21013/original/14%2002%202008%20Summit%20proposal%20and%20budget.pdf >> ) >> >> Does anyone have more information on the "Individual Internet Users" >> declaration? Any thoughts or opinions? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >> Hi Katitza, >> >> The summit info is at >> >> https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?documents >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < >> katitza at datos-personales.org >> > wrote: >> >> > Dear all: >> > >> > The upcoming ICANN meeting will be held in Mexico City on 1-6 >> March. On >> > February 28, 2009, >> > there will be an At Large (Internet Users) Summit. >> > http://mex.icann.org/ >> > >> > It would be nice that those involved in the Internet users >> summit could >> > share with us its purpose, >> > the agenda if there anything public, or any other information >> that might be >> > useful for the community to learn >> > what is going on there. There are little information about the >> summit on >> > the webpage. >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > >> > Katitza Rodriguez >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Coalition mailing list >> > Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org >> >> > >> >> http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute for International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> *********************************************************** >> _______________________________________________ >> Coalition mailing list >> Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org >> >> >> http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 11 14:49:48 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:49:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: [Coalition] ICANN Meeting in Mexico In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <345600.38144.qm@web52209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Ginger, In July 2008 ICANN published a series of proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement -- one of those amendments was a direct response to a concern first raised by the ALAC's Vittorio Bertola, namely that Registrant Rights be clearly detailed in the contract. The exact text of the amendment follows: "In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies." Since this amendment was proposed, neither the ALAC nor any of the proponents of this measure have acted to define such rights -- they haven't even started. If this rights subset hasn't been worked on at all in the last year, I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting this Summit to yield a full exposition of Internet User Rights. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Thu Feb 12 03:16:01 2009 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:16:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28cfc1a40902120016i3c3f6bc8t1cbcb2d90b1a09a5@mail.gmail.com> FYI Regards, Brenden ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Internet Governance Project Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:26 AM Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu [image: Internet Governance Project] February 09, 2009 A Field Guide to the ICANN Reforms <#11f5b38e275384e8_0> EU posts online consultation results on "Internet of Things"<#11f5b38e275384e8_1> Cyber-security for people? Or nations? <#11f5b38e275384e8_2> Shareholder groups push ISPs for transparency on DPI use<#11f5b38e275384e8_3> Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ------------------------------ A Field Guide to the ICANN Reforms Important changes are taking place in ICANN's representational structures. They are the most sweeping changes in ICANN since the so-called "evolution and reform" process of 2001-2. The new changes will directly affect opportunities for people to participate in ICANN – hopefully in a more positive way. Indeed, there are some (potentially) good things about the planned reforms, such as a more balanced representation of commercial and noncommercial users and more flexible working group structures. But there are also serious problems and dangers in this effort. That is why the Internet Governance Project is initiating a series of blogs explaining and analyzing the structural changes underway in ICANN. If you think reading about this topic is about as appealing as getting a tetanus shot, we sympathize, and promise to make it as lively and interesting as possible. At the very least, we guarantee that reading this unfolding report will be more pleasurable than reading the 23 different ICANN staff reports, 5-6 Board resolutions, months of Council minutes and multiple email lists you would have to monitor to piece it all together for yourself. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • EU posts online consultation results on "Internet of Things" Europe is very interested in the Internet of the future, having ceded to the United States so much of the standards and governance of the Internet of the past. A September 29, 2008 European Union staff working paper, "Early Challenges to the Internet of Things,"shot some policy concerns across the bow. How should the IoT be regulated? EU seemed especially concerned about the apparent linkage between the Object Naming System (ONS) used by EPC Global (contracting with VeriSign) and the U.S.-controlled DNS root. Comment upon and responses to this staff paper are now posted online. If you are interested in the evolution of thinking about IoT a look through these comments might be rewarding. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Cyber-security for people? Or nations? The Internet is organized around "autonomous systems" -- independently managed networks most of which are privately owned or, if public, managed at the agency or department level. The current institutional structure for public governance, on the other hand, is organized around nation-states. That disjunction encourages some actors to construct Internet security as a national security issue. Political claims that invoke "national security" can inflate budgets and provide for more effective political mobilization within bureaucracies and the political class. A recent report from a "Commission on Cyberspace Security for the 44th Presidency" assembled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington DC-based think tank with longstanding roots in Cold War dialogue, exemplifies this problem. Written late in 2008, it urged the incoming President to proclaim that "cyberspace is a vital asset for the nation and…the United States will protect it using all instruments of national power." This is a fundamentally misguided approach; this post explains why. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Shareholder groups push ISPs for transparency on DPI use A coalition of investors have filed shareholder resolutions with 10 major U.S. Internet service providers, urging their corporate boards to report on the impact of the companies' use of deep packet inspection for Internet network management on the freedom of expression and privacy of their customers. The effort was organized by the Open Media and Information Companies initiative (OpenMIC). A spokesperson for one of the investor groups, Farnum Brown of Trillium Asset Management, said: "These companies have responded to the challenges of managing the Internet in a patchwork, ad hoc fashion. In so doing they've failed to notice the profound social policy issues they've unwittingly engaged. Americans are concerned about how their use of the Internet is monitored. They're concerned about whether their privacy and freedom of expression are respected by the companies that manage the Internet. We as shareholders believe it is in these companies' best business interests to respond to those concerns." • Email to a friend• Article Search• • ------------------------------ *Click here to safely unsubscribe nowfrom "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change subscription settings * ------------------------------ ------------------------------ 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 avri at acm.org Thu Feb 12 05:38:22 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:38:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [ACM-BULLETIN] Today's Topic: USACM's Recommendations to Transform Government for a Web 2.0 World] Message-ID: <1234435102.6301.19.camel@bower> after having apologized for posting something US-centric, two things of possible interest: - the item itself - the fact that they have what public policy group that might actually be concerning itself with IG issues. note: i have not read the full report and do not consider myself responsible for anything they may or may not have said that may or may not offend someone reading this message or the materials referenced herein. a. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: ACMBulletin Subject: [ACM-BULLETIN] Today's Topic: USACM's Recommendations to Transform Government for a Web 2.0 World Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:09:58 -0500 ACM Bulletin Service Today's Topic: USACM's Recommendations to Transform Government for a Web 2.0 World February 11, 2009 ________________________________________________________________________ ACM’s public policy committee, USACM, recently issued recommendations to make the growing body of US government data more open and accessible to all Americans. USACM issued the statement to encourage government policy makers to use these guidelines when publishing data on the Internet. USACM’s recommendations advise that government data should: be in formats promoting analysis; preserve the machine-readability when republished; be accessible to citizens with limitations and disabilities; be downloadable; be accessible using standard queries; be published using data formats that do not include executable content; be digitally signed or include attestation of publication/creation date, authenticity, and integrity. USACM also applauded the new US Administration’s efforts to create openness in government. “We are pleased that on day one, the new Administration and the new Congress have made transparency a priority,” said USACM member David Robinson, Associate Director of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy. Read the full USACM statement. View the ACM press release. ________________________________________________________________________ The ACM Bulletin Service provides ACM members with email notification of important association news and activities. Should you wish to be excluded from future issues of the acm-bulletin, please enter your email address avri at PSG.COM at http://optout.acm.org/listserv_index.cfm?ln=acm-bulletin and we'll remove you. Association for Computing Machinery Advancing Computing as a Science and Profession (c) 2009 ACM, Inc. All rights reserved. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 15:23:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:23:45 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a couple of suggested additions below. We do need to move to a consensus call on this within a day or two. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF > meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the > responsibilities > of all parties. I agree. We seem to have general agreement to move from our previous statements of rights as a theme to rights and principles > > The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and > applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. Although I agree with this phrasing, I wonder what people think about us not mentioning net neutrality at all or whether an addition such as "this includes elements of the network neutrality debate" would be useful > > The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, > especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP > resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] > Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. > Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward > > In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF > process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement > on > the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within > openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have > been in discussion on the list. > > I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC > statement “Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in > Egypt”  is copied below for your reference): > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF > meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the > responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > significant > themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and > applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >  Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, > particularly > in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, > especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP > resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > I look forward to your ideas on this. > Regards, > Ginger > > IGC previous statement: > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' > an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > >  One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right > ls > e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfoot > no > te3sym>  to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the > internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio- > economic > conflict in the information society.  The IGF can explore issues > surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space > It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful > in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the > Internet > unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and > telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to > have > an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, > or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the > public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the > IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the > right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce > them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete > with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of > a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods > of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global > forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming  increasingly central to > many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and > conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights > framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned.  These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 12 15:25:51 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:25:51 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement for comments - IGF review - IGF mandate, role and structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Any further comments on this? We need to move to a consensus call in a day or two. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 02 February 2009 10:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Draft statement for comments - IGF review - IGF mandate, role and structure Below is a suggested draft for a verbal statement on IGF mandate role ad structure for the February consultations. Comments please! The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Feb 12 15:35:46 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:35:46 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <13457C9E8C4348AC85D53F4CDD754495@IAN> Message-ID: <97AAAACE64154209AB6185AA0C982094@IAN> Let me have another go at this, strengthening support for a structured analysis. Please give feedback on the text below ASAP as we need to move to a consensus call quickly. As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. If it is found necessary to do an expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 02 February 2009 10:42 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review I'm looking here to finalise our comments on the IGF review process, which will be delivered in spoken form at the February consultation. I will post separately for comments a draft statement on the role and mandate of IGF. However, before finalising the summary of what I think we have agreed on to date, let me add another thought and see if it has general support here or not - if not, we can go with what is below which we have largely agreed to already. I believe there will be widespread opposition to an outside consultancy making specific recommendations as an independent body for stakeholders to accept or reject. Rather, I believe the outside consultancy is necessary only to provide a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, providing a structured methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. I believe such a study is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. I do not think the outside consultancy should make independent recommendations however. I believe it should present its findings to either MAG or some other specifically tasked multistakeholder committee managing the review, with the multistakeholder body being tasked with making appropriate recommendations based on the findings. That sits better for me as a methodology and way forward. Interested in whether IGC would like to propose something along these lines. Draft follows Process of review (without inclusion of this specific suggestion) As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do an expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 16:00:25 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Although I agree with this phrasing, I wonder what people think about us not > mentioning net neutrality at all or whether an addition such as "this > includes elements of the network neutrality debate" would be useful >> I think it would be a distraction to use the term, since it means so many things to many different people. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Feb 13 11:45:16 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:45:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward References: Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E86@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> But we all support 'open'ness right, and probably don't need a debate to put that word or the phrase 'open access' into the doc. If not, then leave it alone I agree. Lee -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 4:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Although I agree with this phrasing, I wonder what people think about us not > mentioning net neutrality at all or whether an addition such as "this > includes elements of the network neutrality debate" would be useful >> I think it would be a distraction to use the term, since it means so many things to many different people. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dcogburn at syr.edu Fri Feb 13 12:28:03 2009 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:28:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the 2009 IGC MAG NomCom, I am pleased to announce our list of recommendations and draft report. We have added the list of names to the IGC Portal, including the draft report. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/25 Congratulations to our slate of ten candidates. 2009 IGC MAG NomCom Derrick Cogburn (Chair) Javier Pinzón Stuart Hamilton Renate Bloem Rudi Vansnick Siranush Vardanyan Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 13 14:44:27 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:44:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1459D656E17043AC906B0425EB882C62@IAN> Thank you Derrick, Javier, Stuart, Renate, Rudi and Siranush for your work on our behalf in completing and finalising this list. I know from past experience that this takes a lot of dedication and involves difficult decisions – this year appears to be no different. Thanks also to everyone who agreed to being considered for nomination, it was indeed an impressive list and I don’t envy the Nomcom for their task. And congratulations to my fellow nominees! Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Derrick L. Cogburn [mailto:dcogburn at syr.edu] Sent: 14 February 2009 04:28 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the 2009 IGC MAG NomCom, I am pleased to announce our list of recommendations and draft report. We have added the list of names to the IGC Portal, including the draft report. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/25 Congratulations to our slate of ten candidates. 2009 IGC MAG NomCom Derrick Cogburn (Chair) Javier Pinzón Stuart Hamilton Renate Bloem Rudi Vansnick Siranush Vardanyan Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 13 22:06:59 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:06:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <97AAAACE64154209AB6185AA0C982094@IAN> References: <97AAAACE64154209AB6185AA0C982094@IAN> Message-ID: On 13/02/2009, at 4:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Let me have another go at this, strengthening support for a > structured analysis. Please give feedback on the text below ASAP as > we need to move to a consensus call quickly. I am happy except that I would reiterate the suggestions I made at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-01/msg00021.html . -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Feb 14 01:04:10 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:04:10 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for prompting me again Jeremy Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: 14 February 2009 14:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review > > On 13/02/2009, at 4:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Let me have another go at this, strengthening support for a > > structured analysis. Please give feedback on the text below ASAP as > > we need to move to a consensus call quickly. > > I am happy except that I would reiterate the suggestions I made at > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-01/msg00021.html > . > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 14 23:55:19 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:25:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4997A037.7020405@itforchange.net> Apologies for coming in so late, but if changes are still being considered I suggest that - we say 'Internet rights and principles' instead of just 'rights and principles' which in my opinion do not make it what clear what really is meant/ proposed. - the phrase 'Without invoking legislation or prohibitions' should be removed. I do not think the IGC has a position against invocation of any legislation at all. - I am strongly in favor of explicitly including the issue of network neutrality (we can call it the issue of an 'open Internet' as evoked in debates around the NN issue or something like that), and we should specifically mention that the next IGF takes up and discusses this issue centrally, in its program. On McTim's objection that NN means different things todifferent people, it is not that the IGC is taking a position on what is meant by NN but only asserting that debates and contestations around this issue are important, central and very topical concerns in the realm of global Internet policy and the IGF must discuss this issue, providing a global democratic platform for public discourse and inputs on this crucial subject. thanks. parminder , Ginger Paque wrote: > We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February. > Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and > IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] > Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. > Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward > > In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF > process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on > the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within > openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have > been in discussion on the list. > > I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC > statement "Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in > Egypt" is copied below for your reference): > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly > in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > I look forward to your ideas on this. > Regards, > Ginger > > IGC previous statement: > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right > e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno > te3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the > internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful > in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet > unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and > telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have > an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the > public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Feb 15 00:28:43 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:28:43 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: <4997A037.7020405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2FDEC61A1B40435E8C2367C049576637@IAN> Not too late Parminder and thanks. I’m personally happy with the first two changes you suggest The particular issue we must resolve is whether to specifically mention net neutrality or not – we have differing opinions here. But we all seem to agree it is a term which means different things to different people. I think we also mostly agree that the debate is often confusing and distorted away from what we are trying to achieve. I’m personally not prepared to concede important rights and principles discussions to the sort of distorted traffic management and carrier profitability issues network neutrality evokes. To me any mention of the term has to be somewhat qualified. Perhaps we can compromise with something like the relevant paragraph below, with some suggested additional text in square brackets The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] Comments please? We do need to get to a consensus call within a day or so. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 15 February 2009 15:55 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward Apologies for coming in so late, but if changes are still being considered I suggest that - we say 'Internet rights and principles' instead of just 'rights and principles' which in my opinion do not make it what clear what really is meant/ proposed. - the phrase 'Without invoking legislation or prohibitions' should be removed. I do not think the IGC has a position against invocation of any legislation at all. - I am strongly in favor of explicitly including the issue of network neutrality (we can call it the issue of an 'open Internet' as evoked in debates around the NN issue or something like that), and we should specifically mention that the next IGF takes up and discusses this issue centrally, in its program. On McTim's objection that NN means different things todifferent people, it is not that the IGC is taking a position on what is meant by NN but only asserting that debates and contestations around this issue are important, central and very topical concerns in the realm of global Internet policy and the IGF must discuss this issue, providing a global democratic platform for public discourse and inputs on this crucial subject. thanks. parminder , Ginger Paque wrote: We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February. Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. -----Mensaje original----- De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have been in discussion on the list. I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC statement “Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt” is copied below for your reference): The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. I look forward to your ideas on this. Regards, Ginger IGC previous statement: Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right &revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno te3sym > to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Feb 15 01:13:45 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:43:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: <2FDEC61A1B40435E8C2367C049576637@IAN> References: <2FDEC61A1B40435E8C2367C049576637@IAN> Message-ID: <4997B299.2070409@itforchange.net> >The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant >themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important >issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications >of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] Ian Alternatively we can say "..... in keeping with current international debates regarding an 'open Internet' [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions]. As Lee mentioned no one seems to have objection to use of the term 'open Internet'. This term makes the issues under consideration more specific than just speaking about 'openness' theme, which has been around in the IGF for a few years and is interpreted rather flexibly. My concern is that when globally some specific issues in the area of 'open Internet' are hot, and some key decisions likely to be taken, w emake sure that the IGF does devotes some central space in its agenda to this issue. parminder Ian Peter wrote: > > Not too late Parminder and thanks. I'm personally happy with the first > two changes you suggest > > > > The particular issue we must resolve is whether to specifically > mention net neutrality or not -- we have differing opinions here. But > we all seem to agree it is a term which means different things to > different people. I think we also mostly agree that the debate is > often confusing and distorted away from what we are trying to achieve. > > > > I'm personally not prepared to concede important rights and principles > discussions to the sort of distorted traffic management and carrier > profitability issues network neutrality evokes. To me any mention of > the term has to be somewhat qualified. > > > > Perhaps we can compromise with something like the relevant paragraph > below, with some suggested additional text in square brackets > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] > > > > Comments please? We do need to get to a consensus call within a day or so. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 15 February 2009 15:55 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way > forward > > > > Apologies for coming in so late, but if changes are still being > considered I suggest that > > - we say 'Internet rights and principles' instead of just 'rights and > principles' which in my opinion do not make it what clear what really > is meant/ proposed. > > - the phrase 'Without invoking legislation or prohibitions' should be > removed. I do not think the IGC has a position against invocation of > any legislation at all. > > - I am strongly in favor of explicitly including the issue of network > neutrality (we can call it the issue of an 'open Internet' as evoked > in debates around the NN issue or something like that), and we should > specifically mention that the next IGF takes up and discusses this > issue centrally, in its program. On McTim's objection that NN means > different things todifferent people, it is not that the IGC is taking > a position on what is meant by NN but only asserting that debates and > contestations around this issue are important, central and very > topical concerns in the realm of global Internet policy and the IGF > must discuss this issue, providing a global democratic platform for > public discourse and inputs on this crucial subject. > > thanks. > > parminder > > > , > Ginger Paque wrote: > > We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February. > Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and > IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] > Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. > Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org ' > Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward > > In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF > process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on > the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within > openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have > been in discussion on the list. > > I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC > statement "Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in > Egypt" is copied below for your reference): > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly > in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > I look forward to your ideas on this. > Regards, > Ginger > > IGC previous statement: > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right > > _e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno _ > _te3sym> _ to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the > internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful > in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet > unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and > telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have > an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the > public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Feb 15 01:19:27 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:19:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward In-Reply-To: <4997B299.2070409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8C95DE88961F4CC6A081262F8AAD3057@IAN> Yep I’ll buy that. Now we have >The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and >universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant >themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important >issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications >of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [regarding an “open Internet” and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] The square brackets at this stage should be included unless we get strong objections or acceptable improved text Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 15 February 2009 17:14 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Ginger Paque' Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward >The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and >universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant >themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important >issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications >of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] Ian Alternatively we can say "..... in keeping with current international debates regarding an 'open Internet' [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions]. As Lee mentioned no one seems to have objection to use of the term 'open Internet'. This term makes the issues under consideration more specific than just speaking about 'openness' theme, which has been around in the IGF for a few years and is interpreted rather flexibly. My concern is that when globally some specific issues in the area of 'open Internet' are hot, and some key decisions likely to be taken, w emake sure that the IGF does devotes some central space in its agenda to this issue. parminder Ian Peter wrote: Not too late Parminder and thanks. I’m personally happy with the first two changes you suggest The particular issue we must resolve is whether to specifically mention net neutrality or not – we have differing opinions here. But we all seem to agree it is a term which means different things to different people. I think we also mostly agree that the debate is often confusing and distorted away from what we are trying to achieve. I’m personally not prepared to concede important rights and principles discussions to the sort of distorted traffic management and carrier profitability issues network neutrality evokes. To me any mention of the term has to be somewhat qualified. Perhaps we can compromise with something like the relevant paragraph below, with some suggested additional text in square brackets The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions] Comments please? We do need to get to a consensus call within a day or so. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 15 February 2009 15:55 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward Apologies for coming in so late, but if changes are still being considered I suggest that - we say 'Internet rights and principles' instead of just 'rights and principles' which in my opinion do not make it what clear what really is meant/ proposed. - the phrase 'Without invoking legislation or prohibitions' should be removed. I do not think the IGC has a position against invocation of any legislation at all. - I am strongly in favor of explicitly including the issue of network neutrality (we can call it the issue of an 'open Internet' as evoked in debates around the NN issue or something like that), and we should specifically mention that the next IGF takes up and discusses this issue centrally, in its program. On McTim's objection that NN means different things todifferent people, it is not that the IGC is taking a position on what is meant by NN but only asserting that debates and contestations around this issue are important, central and very topical concerns in the realm of global Internet policy and the IGF must discuss this issue, providing a global democratic platform for public discourse and inputs on this crucial subject. thanks. parminder , Ginger Paque wrote: We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February. Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. -----Mensaje original----- De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m. Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have been in discussion on the list. I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC statement “Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt” is copied below for your reference): The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates. The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. I look forward to your ideas on this. Regards, Ginger IGC previous statement: Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right &revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno te3sym > to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Feb 15 18:23:53 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:23:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW Message-ID: We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 15 18:28:13 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:28:13 +1100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE Message-ID: We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 15 18:50:18 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:50:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <508432.30974.qm@web45208.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 2/15/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:28 PM We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review.   Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage.   STATEMENT     The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.   There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.   Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.   It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.   Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic.   We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management.     Ian Peter PO Box  429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com    ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 15 18:51:37 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:51:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <106903.47421.qm@web45211.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ian my vote is yes --- On Sun, 2/15/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:28 PM We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review.   Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage.   STATEMENT     The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.   There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.   Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.   It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.   Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic.   We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management.     Ian Peter PO Box  429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com    ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Feb 15 19:32:54 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:32:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4998B436.7090802@jacquelinemorris.com> Hi Ian Yes from me... Jacqueline Ian Peter wrote: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Mon Feb 16 00:26:48 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:26:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7B1618928F364C139273500979A8B598@apollo.local> YES Dave Kissoondoyal _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 16 February 2009 04:24 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Feb 16 01:54:17 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:54:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE Message-ID: <891462.15070.qm@web54304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Ian My vote is a YES Shaila Rao Mistry moments of joy .........are the essence of life live in the moment........for only this is yours !! ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:28:13 PM Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 16 02:43:32 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:43:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71E50FAC-B2B2-4DA5-A852-B7B7CDE02D75@ciroap.org> On 16/02/2009, at 7:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at > this late stage. Yes. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Feb 16 03:31:53 2009 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:31:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW References: Message-ID: <001701c99011$0585fa40$7312a8c0@acerb8600603ec> Ian, Yes for the statement -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:23 AM Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 16 04:05:23 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:05:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1234775123.6545.36.camel@anriette-laptop> Hi Ian I (speaking in my personal capacity at this point, not for APC) am happy to endorse this. There is a misplaced full stop in the third pargraph. I find the second paragraph a bit confusing.. but that is probably because I have been traveling and in meetings, and have not been able to follow the discussion. > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > including constituencies in developing counties including those of > civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like > women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. If the intention is to consult people who have an interest in IG issues but who have not participated in the IGF then it makes sense. We need to know why people such as the many involved in ccTLDs, for example, have not been present in IGF spaces. Perhaps the paragraph should simply make it clear that we are not talking about 'minorities', 'women', etc. in general, but about groups that are IG stakeholders, and that have an interest in IG issues, but who have not, to date, participated. In other words, we are still taking about the IGF's intended audience. But I have desire to split hairs... and I am happy to give the statement a 'Yes'. Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 16 05:01:06 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:01:06 +0100 Subject: VS: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE References: <508432.30974.qm@web45208.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84268A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I vote YES wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: Dina [mailto:dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com] Lähetetty: ma 16.2.2009 0:50 Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org Aihe: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE --- On Sun, 2/15/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:28 PM We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jameleddinekhemakhem at topnet.tn Mon Feb 16 04:59:17 2009 From: jameleddinekhemakhem at topnet.tn (jameleddine khemakhem) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:59:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003f01c9901d$3b32b500$b1981f00$@tn> Yes for the statement Jameleddine khemakhem ATUDE De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2009 00:28 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Mon Feb 16 05:15:31 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:15:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090216101537.63C6467831@smtp1.electricembers.net> I vote YES. Hakikur Rahman At 11:23 PM 2/15/2009, Ian Peter wrote: >We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. >Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response >to this message. > >If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that >would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small >amendments if necessary. > > >STATEMENT > >As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be >centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These >consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be >necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other >interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend >the IGF meetings. > >The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at >present, including constituencies in developing counties including >those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG >issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should >also be especially reached out to. > >IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, >accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, >and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the >usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a >specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked >with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. > >In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and >transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are >independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the >United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is >not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency >that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > >The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of >global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the >geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed >public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in >partnership with one such institution from the North. There should >be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South >perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 05:19:46 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:19:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: He Ian, Yes Baudouin 2009/2/16 Ian Peter > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please > indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this > message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be > helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the > IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed > represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and > making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent > from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The > process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely > on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a > politically sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 16 05:46:29 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:46:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49994405.60302@nic.br> Yes ... =================================== On 15/2/2009 20:28, Ian Peter wrote: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Mon Feb 16 05:48:41 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:48:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW References: Message-ID: <05d301c99024$22e9a650$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Thomas Lowenhaupt YES ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:23 PM Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From babatope at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 06:28:28 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:28:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <20090216101537.63C6467831@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20090216101537.63C6467831@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I vote YES with a quick rework of the paragraph Anriette refered to The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties such as but not limited to civil society, women-focused groups, ethnic minorities and disability groups, ccTLDs as well as other IG interest groups/stakeholders. On 2/16/09, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > I vote YES. > > Hakikur Rahman > > > At 11:23 PM 2/15/2009, Ian Peter wrote: > > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please > indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this > message. > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be > helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. > > > STATEMENT > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the > IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed > represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and > making recommendations based on this analysis. > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent > from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The > process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely > on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a > politically sensitive and important assessment. > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 16 06:29:58 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:59:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Way Forward Message-ID: The following statement includes minor changes as requested during discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. Thanks! Ginger STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGCWayForward.doc Type: application/msword Size: 25600 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Feb 16 03:50:23 2009 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:50:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE References: Message-ID: <004401c99020$6f0d8500$7312a8c0@acerb8600603ec> Hi Ian, I think that this statement should include a clear concern about the participation of developping countries stakeholders in the IGF meetings. I propose to modify the last paragraph in this way : We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. This funding should be sufficient to help as much participants form developing countries as possible attend the IGF meetings and make their voice heard. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:28 AM Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Feb 16 07:13:33 2009 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:13:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Way Forward References: Message-ID: <009901c9902f$fd03ff10$7312a8c0@acerb8600603ec> Ginger, Yes for this statement -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: Ian Peter ; I G List Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:29 PM Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Way Forward The following statement includes minor changes as requested during discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. Thanks! Ginger STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Feb 16 07:56:23 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:56:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090216125631.5021BE19DD@smtp3.electricembers.net> YES for this statement. Hakikur Rahman At 11:29 AM 2/16/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: >The following statement includes minor changes as requested during >discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement >on The Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon >as possible. Thanks! Ginger > > > >STATEMENT > >The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and >Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to >discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and >clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they >relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes >a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > >The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of >openness and universal access. This framework will continue to >emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and >development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights >and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in >keeping with current international debates regarding an "open >Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network >neutrality discussions. > >The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern >the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > >Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF >2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we >recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working >Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially >in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources >from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. >Content-Type: application/msword; name="IGCWayForward.doc" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IGCWayForward.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fr92ciyx0 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 16 11:06:02 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:06:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Way Forward References: Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Yes Lee -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 6:29 AM To: Ian Peter; I G List Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Way Forward The following statement includes minor changes as requested during discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. Thanks! Ginger STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Feb 16 12:11:52 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:11:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49999E58.6090609@rits.org.br> Yes in general terms. I think we should have been more specific on the evaluation format. Shouldn't we stress that the twin evaluators be non-profit, academic or research institutions of known expertise and independence (hard to find...)? But this will generate discussion, so let us keep the way it is. A small typo: "constituencies in developing countRies" instead of "constituencies in developing counties." --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please > indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this > message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be > helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the > IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed > represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and > making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, > it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF > and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process > should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro > bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically > sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Feb 16 12:41:24 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:41:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW References: Message-ID: I like the statement. Wolfgang Benedek ________________________________ Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Gesendet: Mo 16.02.2009 00:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 12:45:20 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:45:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050902160945m3fb9c632i3a345778d6e0b379@mail.gmail.com> YES And thank you for all the good work. Linda. Dr. L.D. Misek-Falkoff (914) 769-3652 * Respectful Interfaces. * On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please > indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this > message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be > helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of > the > IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed > represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process > and > making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, > it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the > IGF > and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process > should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro > bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically > sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 21:18:11 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:18:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> A responsive big vote for YES on 'remote participation'. It went well for the past two times, from here, and augurs very well for the future. Principles of inclusion put into practice! Need not be perfectly seamless to be successful. Much appreciated, and at your service as well, LDMF. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). *Respectful Interfaces*. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > The following statement includes minor changes as requested during > discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The > Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. > Thanks! Ginger > > > > STATEMENT > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" > as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially > > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Feb 16 21:26:30 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:26:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes (for both statements) Thanks, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 16 23:12:35 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:42:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499A3933.4050003@itforchange.net> Yes for both. 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Feb 17 00:51:50 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:51:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes to both. Bill On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at > this late stage. > > STATEMENT > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or > the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can > be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 00:54:34 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:54:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050902162154w6e6902cek99cc9400bff13dea@mail.gmail.com> YES Linda M F. On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending > on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to > the > statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate > why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the > IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Tue Feb 17 01:07:07 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:37:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <45ed74050902162154w6e6902cek99cc9400bff13dea@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050902162154w6e6902cek99cc9400bff13dea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <499A540B.5060901@itforchange.net> Yes to both statements Thanks Ian regards Guru > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending > on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the > statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate > why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late > stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF > - first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder > policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of > the IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If > the IGF is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues > that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it > to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be > assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets > involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://India.IS-Watch.net http://IS-Watch.net http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at itforchange.net Tue Feb 17 02:29:28 2009 From: anja at itforchange.net (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:59:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499A6758.8030902@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Feb 17 02:31:44 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE References: <499A6758.8030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <629154.3297.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Yes to both statements shaila rao mistry When you remember, then you are not in the moment when you have forgotten, then you are in the moment On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Feb 17 02:37:41 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:37:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] THREE CONSENSUS CALLS - THANK YOU EVERYONE Message-ID: <0E370C1B59524E0F896F665851C88551@IAN> I think we now have enough responses to adopt the three statements with a few minor amendments which have been pointed out. Thank you to everyone who contributed and responded. We will post these on line in due course and present these as the position of IGC at the consultations Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Feb 17 03:19:24 2009 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:19:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE References: <499A6758.8030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes to both. Matthias ________________________________ Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Di 17.02.2009 08:29 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE Yes to both. Anja On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the statement on the IGF review. Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg Tue Feb 17 04:25:26 2009 From: iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg (iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:25:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes to both statements. Iliya Bazlyankov iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:28:13 +1100, "Ian Peter" wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending > on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to > the > statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate > why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the > IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF > is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative > and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 04:25:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:55:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Linda, I don't know if you remember me--we met some years back... I really appreciated your statement on remote participation here, particularly, your note that "Need not be perfectly seamless to be successful." Sometimes we forget that, and it was nice to read. May I send your note to the RP working group--and may it be quoted to the Secretariat or in planning meetings? Thanks! Regards, Ginger On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:48 PM, linda misek-falkoff < ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> wrote: > A responsive big vote for YES on 'remote participation'. It went well for > the past two times, from here, and augurs very well for the future. > > Principles of inclusion put into practice! Need not be perfectly seamless > to be successful. > > Much appreciated, and at your service as well, > > LDMF. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> The following statement includes minor changes as requested during >> discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The >> Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. >> Thanks! Ginger >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" >> as a major >> theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings >> moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to >> the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human >> rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities >> of all parties. >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant >> themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important >> issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications >> of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an >> "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network >> neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> It allows for open examination >> of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its >> commercial facets. >> >> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >> multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF >> 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we >> recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working >> >> Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially >> >> in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources >> from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jamelatude at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 17 04:54:14 2009 From: jamelatude at yahoo.fr (jameleddine Khemakhem) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:54:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <004501c990e5$b35c7020$1a155060$@fr> Ian Yes for the statement Jameleddine khemakhem atude -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 17 05:44:07 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:44:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70902170244kc128eeeuedbbddd6aecd2f1e@mail.gmail.com> Yes for both statements. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending > on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the > statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate > why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Feb 17 06:46:43 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:46:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499AA3A3.7000401@rits.org.br> Yes to this one as well. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending > on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the > statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate > why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, > regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's > role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is > assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the > IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy > making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and > democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few > years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured > stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the > IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Feb 17 07:17:52 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:17:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <499AA3A3.7000401@rits.org.br> References: <499AA3A3.7000401@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <499AAAF0.9030307@wzb.eu> Hi, I support both statements. jeanette Carlos Afonso wrote: > Yes to this one as well. > > --c.a. > > Ian Peter wrote: >> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending >> on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the >> statement on the IGF review. >> >> >> >> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate >> why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue >> beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> >> >> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, >> regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy >> dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's >> role need to be strengthened. >> >> >> >> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is >> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other >> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its >> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >> >> >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in >> the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the >> IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy >> making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and >> democratic. >> >> >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few >> years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured >> stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions >> effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we >> believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the >> IGF's management. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Feb 17 07:30:00 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:30:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <499AAAF0.9030307@wzb.eu> References: <499AA3A3.7000401@rits.org.br> <499AAAF0.9030307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20090217123000.GQ20178@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:17:52PM +0000, Jeanette Hofmann (jeanette at wzb.eu) wrote: > Hi, I support both statements. So do I. > > Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Yes to this one as well. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >>> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending >>> on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the >>> statement on the IGF review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate >>> why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. >>> >>> >>> >>> STATEMENT >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue >>> beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, >>> regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy >>> dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's >>> role need to be strengthened. >>> >>> >>> >>> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >>> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is >>> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other >>> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its >>> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in >>> the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the >>> IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy >>> making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and >>> democratic. >>> >>> >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few >>> years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured >>> stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions >>> effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we >>> believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the >>> IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 07:36:15 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:36:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <20090217123000.GQ20178@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <499AA3A3.7000401@rits.org.br> <499AAAF0.9030307@wzb.eu> <20090217123000.GQ20178@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I support this statement Best regards Marília Maciel On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:17:52PM +0000, Jeanette Hofmann (jeanette at wzb.eu) > wrote: > > > Hi, I support both statements. > > So do I. > > > > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Yes to this one as well. > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> Ian Peter wrote: > >>> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending > >>> on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately > to the > >>> statement on the IGF review. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate > >>> why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> STATEMENT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue > >>> beyond its first mandated period of five years. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, > >>> regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder > policy > >>> dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the > IGF's > >>> role need to be strengthened. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > >>> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is > >>> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other > >>> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its > >>> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in > >>> the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the > >>> IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy > >>> making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative > and > >>> democratic. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few > >>> years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be > assured > >>> stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions > >>> effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we > >>> believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in > the > >>> IGF's management. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> PO Box 429 > >>> > >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 > >>> > >>> Australia > >>> > >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >>> > >>> www.ianpeter.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 08:30:26 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:30:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050902170530k196079d1l26aea6529e5c4867@mail.gmail.com> Of course, pass forward any note that is helpful; it is even more inclusive participation. I must say that the Elon online documentation of the India/Hyderabad venue meeting is really great. I have quite a bit from the Rio Meeting prior, in case you want to put these together sometime. Not as polished as that I have seen lately, but power-pointy. Your cheering note well received, Looking forward to more collaborating, Linda M F. InterNetizen '60s ff, multi-generationally oriented. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM, linda misek-falkoff < ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> wrote: > A responsive big vote for YES on 'remote participation'. It went well for > the past two times, from here, and augurs very well for the future. > > Principles of inclusion put into practice! Need not be perfectly seamless > to be successful. > > Much appreciated, and at your service as well, > > LDMF. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > The following statement includes minor changes as requested during > > discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on > The > > Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. > > Thanks! Ginger > > > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" > > as a major > > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF > meetings > > moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the > responsibilities > > of all parties. > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and > > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > significant > > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and > applications > > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding > an > > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > > neutrality discussions. > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > > It allows for open examination > > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > > commercial facets. > > > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the > IGF > > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > > > > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, > especially > > > > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP > resources > > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 09:00:28 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:00:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> References: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I say yes to this statement Best regards Marília On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Yes > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] > Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 6:29 AM > To: Ian Peter; I G List > Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The > Way Forward > > The following statement includes minor changes as requested during > discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The > Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. > Thanks! Ginger > > > > STATEMENT > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" > as a major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings > moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, > especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP > resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Tue Feb 17 09:05:03 2009 From: balbornoz at flacso.org.ec (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Bel=E9n_Albornoz?=) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:05:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004601c99108$bae8bab0$30ba3010$@org.ec> Yes for both De: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] En nombre de linda misek-falkoff Enviado el: Lunes, 16 de Febrero de 2009 21:18 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque CC: l.d. misek-falkoff; respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Asunto: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The A responsive big vote for YES on 'remote participation'. It went well for the past two times, from here, and augurs very well for the future. Principles of inclusion put into practice! Need not be perfectly seamless to be successful. Much appreciated, and at your service as well, LDMF. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). *Respectful Interfaces*. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: The following statement includes minor changes as requested during discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. Thanks! Ginger STATEMENT The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por su apoyo. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. For all your IT requirements visit: http://www.transtec.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Tue Feb 17 09:19:56 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:19:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050902161818h10486733uee2d75561cd85a81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, "Yes" to both statements Regards, Charity G. On 2/17/09, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > A responsive big vote for YES on 'remote participation'. It went well for > the past two times, from here, and augurs very well for the future. > > Principles of inclusion put into practice! Need not be perfectly seamless > to be successful. > > Much appreciated, and at your service as well, > > LDMF. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> The following statement includes minor changes as requested during >> discussion. We should now have consensus on the following statement on The >> Way Forward. Please indicate YES or NO in response as soon as possible. >> Thanks! Ginger >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Internet Rights and Principles" >> as a major >> theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF >> meetings >> moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to >> the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human >> rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the >> responsibilities >> of all parties. >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the >> significant >> themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important >> issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and >> applications >> of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding >> an >> "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network >> neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> It allows for open examination >> of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its >> commercial facets. >> >> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >> multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF >> 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we >> recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working >> >> Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, >> especially >> >> in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP >> resources >> from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From danield at w3.org Tue Feb 17 09:22:48 2009 From: danield at w3.org (Daniel Dardailler) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:22:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <49994405.60302@nic.br> References: <49994405.60302@nic.br> Message-ID: <499AC838.2060802@w3.org> Yes as well. Hartmut Glaser wrote: > > Yes ... > > =================================== > On 15/2/2009 20:28, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, >> depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or >> separately to the statement on the IGF review. >> >> >> >> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can >> articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this >> late stage. >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> >> >> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - >> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for >> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. >> >> >> >> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the >> IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the >> other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to >> improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >> >> >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the >> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring >> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >> sought. >> >> >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF >> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to >> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public >> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN >> organization gets involved in the IGF's management. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From valeriab at apc.org Tue Feb 17 09:39:09 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:39:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <499AC838.2060802@w3.org> References: <49994405.60302@nic.br> <499AC838.2060802@w3.org> Message-ID: Hello, I support both statements. Valeria 2009/2/17 Daniel Dardailler > Yes as well. > > > Hartmut Glaser wrote: > >> >> Yes ... >> >> =================================== >> On 15/2/2009 20:28, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> >>> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, >>> depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or >>> separately to the statement on the IGF review. >>> >>> >>> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can >>> articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late >>> stage. >>> >>> >>> STATEMENT >>> >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> >>> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - >>> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder >>> policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of >>> the IGF's role need to be strengthened. >>> >>> >>> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >>> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is >>> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other >>> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its >>> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >>> >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the >>> IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy >>> making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and >>> democratic. >>> >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last >>> few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be >>> assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its >>> functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this >>> end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved >>> in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From graciela at rits.org.br Tue Feb 17 12:00:13 2009 From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:00:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> Hello, I support both statements. best, Graciela Selaimen Ian Peter escreveu: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 12:43:31 2009 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:43:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for nominations -GAID Steering Committee - extended deadline Message-ID: <499af746.096c100a.422c.ffffb46b@mx.google.com> This is a reminder: Dear Colleagues, The UN-GAID Secretariat will receive nominations, including self nominations, from Civil Society organizations, to serve on the GAID Steering Committee. In compliance with the GAID rotating system two or three slots will be available for organizations which commit to help implement the MDGs and the UN Development agenda by using ICTs. Members of qualified organizations familiar with the UN system, or having been accredited to World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) or otherwise relevant to ICT4D, should send their nominations, accompanied by a short CV and description of their goals to the GAID Secretariat at gaid at un-gaid.org . The Secretarial will screen regarding relevance, region, youth, gender before submitting nominations to the Secretary-General who has to make final decisions. Nominations should not come later than 03 March 2009. More information on the GAID structure, including its Steering Committee, can be found on www.un-gaid.org Best wishes,. Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From subbiah at i-dns.net Tue Feb 17 13:00:02 2009 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (S. Subbiah) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:00:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <701af9f70902170244kc128eeeuedbbddd6aecd2f1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70902170244kc128eeeuedbbddd6aecd2f1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <499AFB22.4080106@i-dns.net> Yes for both statements Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Yes for both statements. > >On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > >>We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, depending >>on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or separately to the >>statement on the IGF review. >> >> >> >>Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can articulate >>why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this late stage. >> >> >> >>STATEMENT >> >> >> >> >> >>The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue >>beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> >> >>There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, >>regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy >>dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's >>role need to be strengthened. >> >> >> >>Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be >>promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is >>assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other >>principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its >>effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >> >> >> >>It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in >>the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >>controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the >>IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> >> >>Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy >>making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and >>democratic. >> >> >> >>We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few >>years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured >>stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions >>effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we >>believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the >>IGF's management. >> >> >> >> >> >>Ian Peter >> >>PO Box 429 >> >>Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >>Australia >> >>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >>www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 17 13:12:41 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini UOL) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:12:41 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> References: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <03ca01c9912b$55165d00$0300a8c0@VandaVaio> I do agree! IGF hardly started his real work. I believe next IGF shall start to set up the "who is responsible for" to implement some conclusions, and it will be necessary more time to get reasonable results which make difference for the people around the world. 'regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda at uol.com.br  Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de fevereiro de 2009 14:00 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Assunto: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE Hello, I support both statements. best, Graciela Selaimen Ian Peter escreveu: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 17 13:57:56 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:57:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <03ca01c9912b$55165d00$0300a8c0@VandaVaio> References: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> <03ca01c9912b$55165d00$0300a8c0@VandaVaio> Message-ID: yes ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 17 16:22:05 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:22:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva Message-ID: Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the event? Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From glaser at nic.br Tue Feb 17 16:50:03 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:50:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B310B.5080506@nic.br> I will be there ... ========================================. On 17/2/2009 18:22, Ian Peter wrote: > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our > group? Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or > during the event? > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Feb 17 16:52:52 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:52:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: <499B310B.5080506@nic.br> References: <499B310B.5080506@nic.br> Message-ID: <499B31B4.4060304@wzb.eu> I will be there as well. jeanette Hartmut Glaser wrote: > > I will be there ... > > ========================================. > > On 17/2/2009 18:22, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our >> group? Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or >> during the event? >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Feb 17 17:01:40 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:01:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the expression of trust. jeanette Derrick L. Cogburn wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > On behalf of the 2009 IGC MAG NomCom, I am pleased to announce our list > of recommendations and draft report. We have added the list of names to > the IGC Portal, including the draft report. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/25 > > Congratulations to our slate of ten candidates. > > 2009 IGC MAG NomCom > Derrick Cogburn (Chair) > Javier Pinzón > Stuart Hamilton > Renate Bloem > Rudi Vansnick > Siranush Vardanyan > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Syracuse University > http://cotelco.syr.edu > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Feb 17 19:41:44 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:41:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. [] fraterno --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > event? > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Feb 17 23:54:14 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (ken lohento) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:54:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B9476.4010406@panos-ao.org> Yes KL Ian Peter a écrit : > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Feb 17 23:53:45 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (ken lohento) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:53:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B9459.8060104@panos-ao.org> Yes KL Ian Peter a écrit : > > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. > Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to > this message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that > would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments > if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the > IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > including constituencies in developing counties including those of > civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like > women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness > of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially > appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing > the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are > independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the > United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the > geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed > public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in > partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be > adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From natasha at apc.org Wed Feb 18 00:05:01 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:05:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <499B9459.8060104@panos-ao.org> References: <499B9459.8060104@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <5F067840-04E8-429B-A536-0A26604EBB69@apc.org> yes from me natasha > > > Ian Peter a écrit : >> >> We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. >> Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response >> to this message. >> >> >> If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that >> would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small >> amendments if necessary. >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be >> centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These >> consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be >> necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other >> interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend >> the IGF meetings. >> >> >> The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at >> present, including constituencies in developing counties including >> those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG >> issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should >> also be especially reached out to. >> >> >> IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, >> accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, >> and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the >> usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a >> specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked >> with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on >> this analysis. >> >> >> In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and >> transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are >> independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the >> United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is >> not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any >> agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and >> important assessment. >> >> >> The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of >> global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo- >> political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed >> public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in >> partnership with one such institution from the North. There should >> be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South >> perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: >> 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Tel: +27118372122 Fax: +27865099147 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From natasha at apc.org Wed Feb 18 00:06:02 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:06:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> References: <499AED1D.7050501@rits.org.br> Message-ID: i support the statement natasha > > Ian Peter escreveu: >> >> We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, >> depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with >> or separately to the statement on the IGF review. >> >> >> Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can >> articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at >> this late stage. >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> >> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF >> - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for >> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. >> >> >> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not >> be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If >> the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one >> or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be >> considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. >> >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the >> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to >> bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of >> stakeholders can be sought. >> >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF >> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able >> to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global >> public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no >> other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Tel: +27118372122 Fax: +27865099147 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 01:20:09 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:20:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70902172220m5b9a2176mf031080ab7b7b35b@mail.gmail.com> I vote yes but also support Bapatope's and Anriette's reference: " The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties such as but not limited to civil society, women-focused groups, ethnic minorities and disability groups, ccTLDs as well as other IG interest groups/stakeholders". I would also recommend to keep the IGF evaluation process an Independent and Open one. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please > indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this > message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be > helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF > participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including > constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. > Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic > minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the > IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed > represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and > making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, > it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF > and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process > should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro > bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically > sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one > such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships > are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 18 03:39:07 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:39:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> Message-ID: What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do might have a good suggestion. 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term issues. Does that suit as a general plan? Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > event? > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Feb 18 05:37:34 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:37:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499BE4EE.4010201@nic.br> Yes ... =================================== On 15/2/2009 20:23, Ian Peter wrote: > > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. > Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to > this message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that > would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments > if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the > IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > including constituencies in developing counties including those of > civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like > women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness > of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially > appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing > the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are > independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the > United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the > geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed > public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in > partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be > adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Feb 18 06:20:38 2009 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:20:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499BEF06.6090309@isoc.be> Yes for me too Rudi Vansnick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ President Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC-ECC Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN) Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39 GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.isoc.be - www.vansnick.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <------------ Travels and activities in the coming weeks ----------> 10/2 - 23/2 : Safer Internet Day 2009 - Europe 28/2 - 6/3 : 34st ICANN Meetings - Mexico 26-27/3 : Spamconference MIT - Massachusetts - USA 1/4 : Med-e-Tel Luxemburg 2/4 - 8/4 : World Summit Award Grand Jury - New Delhi - India 20/6 - 25/6 : 35th ICANN Meetings - Sydney <------------------------------------------------------------------> Ian Peter schreef: > > We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. > Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to > this message. > > > > If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that > would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments > if necessary. > > > > > > STATEMENT > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the > IGF meetings. > > > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > including constituencies in developing counties including those of > civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like > women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, > accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and > stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness > of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially > appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing > the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. > > > > In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and > transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are > independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the > United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the > geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed > public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in > partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be > adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Feb 18 06:20:57 2009 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:20:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - IGF ROLE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499BEF19.5010208@isoc.be> Yes for me too Rudi Vansnick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ President Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC-ECC Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN) Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39 GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.isoc.be - www.vansnick.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <------------ Travels and activities in the coming weeks ----------> 10/2 - 23/2 : Safer Internet Day 2009 - Europe 28/2 - 6/3 : 34st ICANN Meetings - Mexico 26-27/3 : Spamconference MIT - Massachusetts - USA 1/4 : Med-e-Tel Luxemburg 2/4 - 8/4 : World Summit Award Grand Jury - New Delhi - India 20/6 - 25/6 : 35th ICANN Meetings - Sydney <------------------------------------------------------------------> Ian Peter schreef: > > We also need to get a consensus on the following statement which, > depending on the flow of the consultations, may be delivered with or > separately to the statement on the IGF review. > > > > Please indicate YES or NO in response. If responding no and can > articulate why, we may be able to accommodate suggestions even at this > late stage. > > > > STATEMENT > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - > first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for > multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. > > > > Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be > promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the > IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the > other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to > improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jameleddinekhemakhem at topnet.tn Wed Feb 18 06:31:47 2009 From: jameleddinekhemakhem at topnet.tn (jameleddine khemakhem) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:31:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <499BE4EE.4010201@nic.br> References: <499BE4EE.4010201@nic.br> Message-ID: <003401c991bc$7c2d1be0$748753a0$@tn> Yes for the statement ATUDE De : Hartmut Glaser [mailto:glaser at nic.br] Envoyé : mercredi 18 février 2009 11:38 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Objet : Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW Yes ... =================================== On 15/2/2009 20:23, Ian Peter wrote: We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Feb 18 07:14:08 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:14:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: References: <20090216101537.63C6467831@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <499BFB90.4080403@jacquelinemorris.com> Yes, and I like the rework - I too thought that paragraph was a bit confusing. Jacqueline Babatope Soremi wrote: > I vote YES with a quick rework of the paragraph Anriette refered to > > The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > including constituencies in developing counties such as but not > limited to civil society, women-focused groups, ethnic minorities and > disability groups, ccTLDs as well as other IG interest > groups/stakeholders. > > On 2/16/09, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > >> I vote YES. >> >> Hakikur Rahman >> >> >> At 11:23 PM 2/15/2009, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please >> indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this >> message. >> >> If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be >> helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered >> on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should >> be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF >> participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for >> different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. >> >> The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies >> that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including >> constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. >> Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic >> minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. >> >> IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, >> accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and >> stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the >> IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed >> represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and >> making recommendations based on this analysis. >> >> In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and >> transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent >> from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The >> process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely >> on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a >> politically sensitive and important assessment. >> >> The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global >> public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political >> significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy >> institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one >> such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of >> perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships >> are a good way to ensure it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> PO Box 429 >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> Australia >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 08:10:21 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:10:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the > consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the > MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the > expression of trust. > jeanette I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret putting me on it. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 18 08:18:51 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:18:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> References: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I like elements of this statement, but cannot make sense of this sentence: This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. Recognizing my late participation in this discussion, is it possible to improve the clarity and grammar of this monster sentence by saying, "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current debates regarding an open Internet and network neutrality discussions." --MM " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 08:32:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:02:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Definitely, Milton, thank you. Copy and paste error with horrible results. Thank you very much for catching this. I can only hope I would have caught it before sending it in. Regards, Ginger On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I like elements of this statement, but cannot make sense of this > sentence: > > > > This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > Recognizing my late participation in this discussion, is it possible to > improve the clarity and grammar of this monster sentence by saying, > > "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to > knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the > basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their > choice, in keeping with current debates regarding an open Internet and > network neutrality discussions." > > --MM > > " > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From valeriab at apc.org Wed Feb 18 08:45:41 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:45:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi Ian and all, Evening of the 22nd seems to be a good time to meet informally to sync information before the open consultation begins. Valeria 2009/2/18 Ian Peter > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do > might have a good suggestion. > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > > > [] fraterno > > > > --c.a. > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our > group? > > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > > event? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > > > Australia > > > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 08:54:21 2009 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:54:21 +0100 Subject: FW: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations Message-ID: <499c131a.0b38560a.3274.6e03@mx.google.com> Dear Milton, Just in case you overlooked below, I allow myself to resend to the list Derrick’s report. Best Renate _____ From: Derrick L. Cogburn [mailto:dcogburn at syr.edu] Sent: vendredi, 13. février 2009 18:28 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the 2009 IGC MAG NomCom, I am pleased to announce our list of recommendations and draft report. We have added the list of names to the IGC Portal, including the draft report. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/25 Congratulations to our slate of ten candidates. 2009 IGC MAG NomCom Derrick Cogburn (Chair) Javier Pinzón Stuart Hamilton Renate Bloem Rudi Vansnick Siranush Vardanyan Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 09:05:40 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:05:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <45ed74050902180605m68b51dcfx942e8deb9e229b22@mail.gmail.com> Yes to that too Milton, nice. Best wishes, Linda M F. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I like elements of this statement, but cannot make sense of this sentence: > > > This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > Recognizing my late participation in this discussion, is it possible to > improve the clarity and grammar of this monster sentence by saying, > > "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to > knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the > basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their > choice, in keeping with current debates regarding an open Internet and > network neutrality discussions." > > --MM > > " > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 18 09:05:12 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:05:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The References: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740E97@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740EA5@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> If we can reinsert the quotation marks around 'open Internet' to put a bit of distance between that phrase and network neutrality I am happy. See below. Lee "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet" and network neutrality discussions." -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 8:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The Definitely, Milton, thank you. Copy and paste error with horrible results. Thank you very much for catching this. I can only hope I would have caught it before sending it in. Regards, Ginger On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I like elements of this statement, but cannot make sense of this > sentence: > > > > This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications > of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an > "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > Recognizing my late participation in this discussion, is it possible to > improve the clarity and grammar of this monster sentence by saying, > > > --MM > > " > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3852 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed Feb 18 09:36:50 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:36:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499C1D02.1010009@rits.org.br> Fine with me. I should arrive in Geneva on the 22nd around 3 PM. Will stay at Les Arcades, as usual. frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do > might have a good suggestion. > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva >> >> Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be >> nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >>> Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? >>> Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the >>> event? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jbl at info.fundp.ac.be Wed Feb 18 10:14:40 2009 From: jbl at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:14:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Double sending Message-ID: <499C25E0.7090703@info.fundp.ac.be> I don't know why I am receiving every message twice! I may be that i am record under two adresses: jberleur at info..fundp.ac.be, and jbl at info.fundp.ac.be Please cancel one or the other. Many thanks Ja cques Berleur ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 18 10:46:17 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:16:17 -0430 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi Ian, I arrive on the 22nd in the afternoon, so a meeting the 22nd is great for me. DiploFoundation has a Capacity Building event on the 24th from 13:00 to 14:00, which will be interesting for Civil Society members also--and I will attend that meeting. What time would the meeting on Tuesday be? I did not want to mention this on the list, so as not to divide people between meetings. Please let me know. At any rate, count on me for the 22nd in the evening. Thanks! Ginger 2009/2/18 Ian Peter > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do > might have a good suggestion. > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > > > [] fraterno > > > > --c.a. > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our > group? > > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > > event? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > > > Australia > > > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Feb 18 10:52:07 2009 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:52:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20090218155235.B74DC2B6F04@mail.gn.apc.org> hi i'm afraid i only arrive late evening of 22nd - but, if you post where you'll be, i'll try to drop by if early enough otherwise, lunch 24th penciled in karen At 15:46 18/02/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: >Hi Ian, >I arrive on the 22nd in the afternoon, so a meeting the 22nd is great for me. > >DiploFoundation has a Capacity Building event on the 24th from 13:00 >to 14:00, which will be interesting for Civil Society members >also--and I will attend that meeting. What time would the meeting on >Tuesday be? I did not want to mention this on the list, so as not to >divide people between meetings. > >Please let me know. At any rate, count on me for the 22nd in the evening. >Thanks! Ginger > >2009/2/18 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> >What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > >Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, >perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere >central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do >might have a good suggestion. > >23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to >attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > >Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday >(24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term >issues. > >Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > > > [] fraterno > > > > --c.a. > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? > > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > > event? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > > > Australia > > > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk Wed Feb 18 10:53:09 2009 From: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:53:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: <499B310B.5080506@nic.br> Message-ID: I will be there as well. On 17/02/2009 21:50, "Hartmut Glaser" wrote: > > I will be there ... > > ========================================. > > On 17/2/2009 18:22, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our group? >> Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the event? >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> >> Australia >> >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 11:01:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:31:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: <20090218155235.B74DC2B6F04@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br> <20090218155235.B74DC2B6F04@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, I can make the meeting on the 22nd, but not lunch on the 24th, as I would like to attend the Capacity Building event at 13:00--I can stop in at the lunch meeting first for a while, though.. Look forward to seeing you. Ginger On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM, karen banks wrote: > hi > > i'm afraid i only arrive late evening of 22nd - but, if you post where > you'll be, i'll try to drop by if early enough > > otherwise, lunch 24th penciled in > > karen > > > At 15:46 18/02/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Ian, > I arrive on the 22nd in the afternoon, so a meeting the 22nd is great for > me. > > DiploFoundation has a Capacity Building event on the 24th from 13:00 to > 14:00, which will be interesting for Civil Society members also--and I will > attend that meeting. What time would the meeting on Tuesday be? I did not > want to mention this on the list, so as not to divide people between > meetings. > > Please let me know. At any rate, count on me for the 22nd in the evening. > Thanks! Ginger > > 2009/2/18 Ian Peter > > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do > might have a good suggestion. > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [ mailto:ca at rits.org.br ] > > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > > > [] fraterno > > > > --c.a. > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our > group? > > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > > event? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > > > Australia > > > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Feb 18 15:21:38 2009 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:21:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva References: <499B5948.7060807@rits.org.br><20090218155235.B74DC2B6F04@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3740C3DF@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Hi all I will be at the meetings on the 23rd and 24th, and will try to make the lunch on the 24th. I look forward to meeting as many civil society members as possible. Stuart Stuart Hamtilton Senior Policy Advisor International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions The Hague Netherlands Tel: 00 31 70 314 0884 -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 5:01 PM To: karen banks; Ian Peter; I G List Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva Hi, I can make the meeting on the 22nd, but not lunch on the 24th, as I would like to attend the Capacity Building event at 13:00--I can stop in at the lunch meeting first for a while, though.. Look forward to seeing you. Ginger On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM, karen banks wrote: > hi > > i'm afraid i only arrive late evening of 22nd - but, if you post where > you'll be, i'll try to drop by if early enough > > otherwise, lunch 24th penciled in > > karen > > > At 15:46 18/02/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Ian, > I arrive on the 22nd in the afternoon, so a meeting the 22nd is great for > me. > > DiploFoundation has a Capacity Building event on the 24th from 13:00 to > 14:00, which will be interesting for Civil Society members also--and I will > attend that meeting. What time would the meeting on Tuesday be? I did not > want to mention this on the list, so as not to divide people between > meetings. > > Please let me know. At any rate, count on me for the 22nd in the evening. > Thanks! Ginger > > 2009/2/18 Ian Peter > > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than I do > might have a good suggestion. > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus then. > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [ mailto:ca at rits.org.br ] > > Sent: 18 February 2009 11:42 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva > > > > Ian, an informal meeting to at least try and sync information would be > > nice. Several people will be in Geneva by the evening of the 22nd. > > > > [] fraterno > > > > --c.a. > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Just wondering who will be attending these consultations from our > group? > > > Also, should we aim for a brief meeting before it begins or during the > > > event? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > PO Box 429 > > > > > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > > > > > Australia > > > > > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > > > > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 18 15:17:52 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:17:52 +1100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5772@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <62B7C7D2B1554B7ABCA7F8936D277605@IAN> Milton, I think we can improve the grammar and expression, but at this late stage I am not happy to change the sense of the mentioning of net neutrality, which was a compromise between those who don't want it there at all and those who think we must include it. It must stay with the "relevant aspects of net neutrality only" reference and I think the sense of the discussion that led to the statement supports that. That wording has been carefully negotiated between interested parties. Taking into account Lee's reference as well, what I am happy to amend the paragraph to is "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions." And at this late stage I think we should leave it at that. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 19 February 2009 00:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Ginger Paque; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Consensus on IGC statement to the OC: The I like elements of this statement, but cannot make sense of this sentence: This framework will continue to emphasize the significant themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. Recognizing my late participation in this discussion, is it possible to improve the clarity and grammar of this monster sentence by saying, "This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice, in keeping with current debates regarding an open Internet and network neutrality discussions." --MM " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Feb 19 02:42:54 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:42:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <499B9459.8060104@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: Yes Divina Frau-Meigs Le 18/02/09 5:53, « ken lohento » a écrit : > > Yes > > KL > > Ian Peter a écrit : >> >> We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. >> Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to >> this message. >> >> >> >> If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that >> would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments >> if necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> >> As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be >> centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These >> consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be >> necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other >> interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the >> IGF meetings. >> >> >> >> The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, >> including constituencies in developing counties including those of >> civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like >> women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be >> especially reached out to. >> >> >> >> IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, >> accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and >> stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness >> of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially >> appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing >> the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. >> >> >> >> In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and >> transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are >> independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the >> United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not >> advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that >> offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. >> >> >> >> The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of >> global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the >> geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed >> public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in >> partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be >> adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South >> perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 >> 18:01:00 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 19 07:08:39 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:08:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. Thanks much... Bill On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> >> Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >> consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >> MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >> expression of trust. >> jeanette > > > I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as > Jeanette. Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this > list; in the unlikely event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure > you that you will not regret putting me on it. > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 19 07:15:50 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:15:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Is the nomcom report available, I don't see it <http://www.igcaucus.org/node/25> And I thought we were to see statements from candidates this time around? Adam >Hi, > >In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and >Milton. Thanks much... > >Bill > >On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> >>>Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >>>consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >>>MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >>>expression of trust. >>>jeanette >> >> >>I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as >>Jeanette. Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this >>list; in the unlikely event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure >>you that you will not regret putting me on it. >>--MM >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake >Senior Associate >Centre for International Governance >Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies >Geneva, Switzerland >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >*********************************************************** > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 19 07:25:52 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:25:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation - GAID Open Consultation, 23 February 2009, ITU Headquarters References: Message-ID: Hello, One more thing to pack into a busy week next...Many of you are probably aware that the UN's GAID has been moving along with activities but that many in and out of the alliance have concerns about its internal management, external focus, and future prospects. Some of us have called for a open consultation in which stakeholders et al could express these concerns, and a brief meeting has now been scheduled for Monday 23rd from 13:30-14:45 in Room K1, Montbrilliant Building at the ITU. http://un-gaid.ning.com/events/gaid-open-consultation The hope is that people attending the IGF consultation who are also interested in the UN's interface with the broader ICT4D terrain will be able to grab a quick lunch in the cafeteria or top floor tower cafe and then head to K1. We'll need to begin promptly since we only have 75 minutes to work with. There will be dial in phone links (alas, via NYC, a 1-212 call) for remote participation. I told the secretariat that I'd help get the word out to civil society and fellow travelers, so attached below are the invitation letter and agenda, and for background, documentation on GAID's prior consultation, recent activities, and current work program. Best, Bill > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: invite_openconsultation23Feb09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91457 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: agenda_openconsultation23Feb09.doc Type: application/msword Size: 60416 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAID CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES 2009.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Geneva Consultations Summary_27May08-1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 86528 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: New GAID website Overview.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 24Sept SteeCom mtng.doc Type: application/msword Size: 115200 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNDESA-GAID Work Programme_2008-2009 FINAL-1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 146432 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 07:53:59 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:53:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to add my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank you so much! Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumni http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. > Thanks much... > > Bill > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> >>> Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >>> consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >>> MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >>> expression of trust. >>> jeanette >> >> >> I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. >> Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely >> event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret >> putting me on it. >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Feb 19 07:53:42 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:53:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> Hum, a bit embarassing though --- should candidates have been selected without having given their consent?... KL a bit Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > Hi Everyone, > > I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to add > my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank > you so much! > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumni > http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig > Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives) > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. >> Thanks much... >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>> >>>> Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >>>> consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >>>> MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >>>> expression of trust. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>> I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. >>> Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely >>> event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret >>> putting me on it. >>> --MM >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: 02/18/09 20:55:00 > > -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://www.haayo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 08:06:27 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:36:27 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: Hi Ken and all, I am assuming that Fouad was "surprised" to have made the final list, not to have been a candidate. As I understand it, consent was given before nomination, so is applied to the selection. On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Ken Lohento wrote: > Hum, a bit embarassing though --- should candidates have been selected > without having given their consent?... > > KL > > > a bit Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > > Hi Everyone, > > I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to add > my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank > you so much! > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumnihttp://www.diplomacy.edu/ig > Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives)http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questionshttp://www.askbajwa.comhttp://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi, > > In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. > Thanks much... > > Bill > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu ] > > Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the > consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the > MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the > expression of trust. > jeanette > > > I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. > Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely > event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret > putting me on it. > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerlandwilliam.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: 02/18/09 20:55:00 > > > > > > -- > Ken Lohento > Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme > Panos Institute West Africa > 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal > +221 33 849 16 66http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13www.cipaco.orgwww.euroafrica-ict.orghttp://www.haayo.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 email at hakik.org Thu Feb 19 10:04:18 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:04:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20090219150440.A3FACE0459@smtp3.electricembers.net> I agree with Ginger. Consent is the nomination, and it has been applied for the selection. For Fouad, the surprise could be the final list, as we read from Milton and others. Congratulations, and the best of luck to the new MAG. Best regards, Hakik At 01:06 PM 2/19/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: >Hi Ken and all, >I am assuming that Fouad was "surprised" to have >made the final list, not to have been a >candidate. As I understand it, consent was given >before nomination, so is applied to the selection. > >On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Ken Lohento ><klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote: >Hum, a bit embarassing though --- should >candidates have been selected without having given their consent?... > >KL > > >a bit Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >> >>Hi Everyone, >> >> >>I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to add >> >>my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank >> >>you so much! >> >> >>Regards. >> >>-------------------------- >> >>Fouad Bajwa >> >>DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumni >> >>http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >>Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives) >> >>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ >> >>@skBajwa >> >>Answering all your technology questions >> >>http://www.askbajwa.com >> >>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>> >>>In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. >>> >>> Thanks much... >>> >>> >>>Bill >>> >>> >>>On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >>>>> >>>>>consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >>>>> >>>>>MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >>>>> >>>>>expression of trust. >>>>> >>>>>jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. >>>> >>>>Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely >>>> >>>>event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret >>>> >>>>putting me on it. >>>> >>>>--MM >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>> >>>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> >>>>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> >>>*********************************************************** >>> >>>William J. Drake >>> >>>Senior Associate >>> >>>Centre for International Governance >>> >>>Graduate Institute of International and >>> >>> Development Studies >>> >>>Geneva, Switzerland >>> >>>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> >>>New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >>> >>>*********************************************************** >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> >>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> >>>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >> >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >> >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >>Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: >>270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: 02/18/09 20:55:00 >> >> >> > > > >-- > >Ken Lohento > >Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme > >Panos Institute West Africa > >6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal > >+221 33 849 16 66 > >http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 > >www.cipaco.org > >www.euroafrica-ict.org > >http://www.haayo.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Feb 19 09:59:30 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:59:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <75.125.91.162.1235055880.7442@mx1.ovh.net> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> <75.125.91.162.1235055880.7442@mx1.ovh.net> Message-ID: <499D73D2.8030503@panos-ao.org> ok sorry for the confusion... By the way, congrats and good luck for all those who have been selected! KL Hakikur Rahman a écrit : > I agree with Ginger. Consent is the nomination, and it has been > applied for the selection. For Fouad, the surprise could be the final > list, as we read from Milton and others. Congratulations, and the best > of luck to the new MAG. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > At 01:06 PM 2/19/2009, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi Ken and all, >> I am assuming that Fouad was "surprised" to have made the final list, >> not to have been a candidate. As I understand it, consent was given >> before nomination, so is applied to the selection. >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Ken Lohento > > wrote: >> >> Hum, a bit embarassing though --- should candidates have been >> selected without having given their consent?... >> >> KL >> >> >> a bit Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> >>> I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to >>> add >>> >>> my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank >>> >>> you so much! >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumni >>> >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives) >>> >>> >>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ >>> >>> @skBajwa >>> >>> Answering all your technology questions >>> >>> http://www.askbajwa.com >>> >>> >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and >>>> Milton. >>>> >>>> Thanks much... >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the >>>>>> >>>>>> consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the >>>>>> >>>>>> MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the >>>>>> >>>>>> expression of trust. >>>>>> >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as >>>>> Jeanette. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the >>>>> unlikely >>>>> >>>>> event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not >>>>> regret >>>>> >>>>> putting me on it. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> >>>> William J. Drake >>>> >>>> Senior Associate >>>> >>>> Centre for International Governance >>>> >>>> Graduate Institute of International and >>>> >>>> Development Studies >>>> >>>> Geneva, Switzerland >>>> >>>> >>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>>> >>>> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: >>> 02/18/09 20:55:00 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ken Lohento >> >> Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme >> >> Panos Institute West Africa >> >> 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal >> >> +221 33 849 16 66 >> >> >> http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 >> >> www.cipaco.org >> >> www.euroafrica-ict.org >> >> >> http://www.haayo.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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: 02/18/09 20:55:00 > > -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://www.haayo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 19 12:29:57 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:29:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations In-Reply-To: <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> References: <499B33C4.2080507@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5771@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1C78847D-AF7D-4ED7-833D-1E633183EBE0@graduateinstitute.ch> <701af9f70902190453h158fc060wbc351bf996c57b60@mail.gmail.com> <499D5656.4090101@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961966@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> My consent was asked for and received, we simply did not keep up with the announcement of the results of the Nomcom process; it was one snowflake in a blizzard of emails.... Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:54 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC NomCom Draft Report and Recommendations Hum, a bit embarassing though --- should candidates have been selected without having given their consent?... KL a bit Fouad Bajwa a écrit : Hi Everyone, I was also surprised to see my name in the list and would like to add my part to William Drake's, Jeanette and Milton's sentiments. Thank you so much! Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumni http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor (IG Advocacy Initiatives) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/ @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi, In the same situation and with the same sentiments as Jeanette and Milton. Thanks much... Bill On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Hi, while wading through the impressive amount of replies to the consensus call, I just discovered that I have been nominated for the MAG. I want to thank the nomination committee for its work and the expression of trust. jeanette I am embarrassed to add that I was in the same situation as Jeanette. Thanks to the Nomcom and to the IGC for being on this list; in the unlikely event that I am appointed to the MAG I ensure you that you will not regret putting me on it. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ________________________________ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.0/1959 - Release Date: 02/18/09 20:55:00 -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://www.haayo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 19 15:27:39 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:27:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > > Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet > informally, > perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or > somewhere > central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than > I do > might have a good suggestion. Ian if you can organize the group (including those who expressed interest off line) and get a head count by Sunday morning I can make suggestions and a reservation. It being Sunday, some restos will be closed, so some indication of preferences would help. > > > 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will > need to > attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and caucus > then. I do hope folks interested in development issues will opt to participate; information sent earlier today. > > > Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on Tuesday > (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some > longer term > issues. > > Does that suit as a general plan? Works for me. Two other quick points; *If anyone is planning on being in Geneva tomorrow Friday and was hoping to go take care of badging and such, you might want to reconsider. There will be about 20,000 Sikhs from across Europe marching and protesting in the area between the train station and the Palais, and UN staff are being told to leave for the day at noon. There was a self-immolation in the Place des Nations last week so there could be a heavy military presence with streets shut etc. *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU has its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the box shaped Montbrillant building, and your ITU badge probably will not get you into the UN proper. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 19 16:09:03 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:09:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva [Correction] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess reading and sending multiple emails while on a conference call can be a bad idea if one's head is groggy. Groveling apologies, the protest in Geneva tomorrow is by Tamils. Bill On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - >> >> Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet >> informally, >> perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or >> somewhere >> central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than >> I do >> might have a good suggestion. > > Ian if you can organize the group (including those who expressed > interest off line) and get a head count by Sunday morning I can make > suggestions and a reservation. It being Sunday, some restos will be > closed, so some indication of preferences would help. >> >> >> 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will >> need to >> attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and >> caucus then. > > I do hope folks interested in development issues will opt to > participate; information sent earlier today. >> >> >> Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on >> Tuesday >> (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some >> longer term >> issues. >> >> Does that suit as a general plan? > > Works for me. Two other quick points; > > *If anyone is planning on being in Geneva tomorrow Friday and was > hoping to go take care of badging and such, you might want to > reconsider. There will be about 20,000 Sikhs from across Europe > marching and protesting in the area between the train station and > the Palais, and UN staff are being told to leave for the day at > noon. There was a self-immolation in the Place des Nations last > week so there could be a heavy military presence with streets shut > etc. > > *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the > consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU > has its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the > box shaped Montbrillant building, and your ITU badge probably will > not get you into the UN proper. > > Best, > > Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Feb 19 22:10:38 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:10:38 +1100 Subject: [governance] Sun 22nd get together for dinner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0B63B56C9636433AB5FBBBF01E8B4030@IAN> Following Bill's suggestion - if you are in Geneva Sunday night and would like to get together for dinner, can you please drop me a note OFFLIST in reply to this (we have enough volume on list without this) I'll happily co-ordinate as Bill suggested and get back to everyone with details. Looking forward to meeting up with everyone - and as this is our only pre-meeting get together it would be good to see at least a few of us able to discuss strategies and approaches. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 20 February 2009 08:09 > To: Governance List > Subject: Re: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva [Correction] > > I guess reading and sending multiple emails while on a conference call > can be a bad idea if one's head is groggy. > > Groveling apologies, the protest in Geneva tomorrow is by Tamils. > > Bill > > On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> What I would suggest having talked to a few people is - > >> > >> Evening of 22nd those of us who are in town should try to meet > >> informally, > >> perhaps over dinner? Perhaps meeting near Gare du Cornavin or > >> somewhere > >> central we can all get to easily. Those who know Geneva better than > >> I do > >> might have a good suggestion. > > > > Ian if you can organize the group (including those who expressed > > interest off line) and get a head count by Sunday morning I can make > > suggestions and a reservation. It being Sunday, some restos will be > > closed, so some indication of preferences would help. > >> > >> > >> 23rd lunchtime is a GAID meeting which some of our key people will > >> need to > >> attend. Those not involved if we care to could again meet and > >> caucus then. > > > > I do hope folks interested in development issues will opt to > > participate; information sent earlier today. > >> > >> > >> Best time for a more formal meeting appears to be lunchtime on > >> Tuesday > >> (24th). I suggest we all try to set that aside and look at some > >> longer term > >> issues. > >> > >> Does that suit as a general plan? > > > > Works for me. Two other quick points; > > > > *If anyone is planning on being in Geneva tomorrow Friday and was > > hoping to go take care of badging and such, you might want to > > reconsider. There will be about 20,000 Sikhs from across Europe > > marching and protesting in the area between the train station and > > the Palais, and UN staff are being told to leave for the day at > > noon. There was a self-immolation in the Place des Nations last > > week so there could be a heavy military presence with streets shut > > etc. > > > > *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the > > consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU > > has its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the > > box shaped Montbrillant building, and your ITU badge probably will > > not get you into the UN proper. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From danield at w3.org Fri Feb 20 06:02:54 2009 From: danield at w3.org (Daniel Dardailler) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:02:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499E8DDE.5090003@w3.org> > *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the > consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU has > its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the box > shaped Montbrillant building, Is it true that we need to go to Montbrillant to register before going to the ITU building ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk Fri Feb 20 06:10:13 2009 From: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:10:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: <499E8DDE.5090003@w3.org> Message-ID: Yes that is correct ­ according to the website we will have first to get our badges and then we will be able to go to the meetings. Konstantinos On 20/02/2009 11:02, "Daniel Dardailler" wrote: > >> > *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the >> > consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU has >> > its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the box >> > shaped Montbrillant building, > > Is it true that we need to go to Montbrillant to register before going to the > ITU building ? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk Fri Feb 20 06:13:50 2009 From: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:13:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <499BE4EE.4010201@nic.br> Message-ID: Yes for me too. K On 18/02/2009 10:37, "Hartmut Glaser" wrote: > > Yes ... > > =================================== > On 15/2/2009 20:23, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please >> indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. >> >> >> >> If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be >> helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >> STATEMENT >> >> >> >> As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on >> consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be >> both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF >> participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different >> reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. >> >> >> >> The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies >> that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including >> constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other >> groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities >> and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. >> >> >> >> IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, >> accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and >> stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the >> IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed >> represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and >> making recommendations based on this analysis. >> >> >> >> In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, >> it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF >> and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process >> should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro >> bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically >> sensitive and important assessment. >> >> >> >> The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global >> public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political >> significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy >> institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one >> such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of >> perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are >> a good way to ensure it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> >> Australia >> >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Fri Feb 20 07:24:06 2009 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:24:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW References: Message-ID: <3C79BF3A880A4E538CE5A246AA9F3590@CASA2> Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEWyes, Si Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Asociación Internauta Usuarios de Internet República Argentina ----- Original Message ----- From: Konstantinos Komaitis To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Hartmut Glaser ; Ian Peter Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW Yes for me too. K On 18/02/2009 10:37, "Hartmut Glaser" wrote: Yes ... =================================== On 15/2/2009 20:23, Ian Peter wrote: We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this message. If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary. STATEMENT As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and making recommendations based on this analysis. In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Feb 20 09:39:36 2009 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (SDK AAA) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:39:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 23-24 Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <499E8DDE.5090003@w3.org> Message-ID: <43c2faf80902200639i597d78cax99d3e94520cb2d39@mail.gmail.com> Hey All, I'm new to this list but i thought to share you this: The Badging is at montbrilliant Building then you will get very simple directions on how to go to the meeting; it's very simple and close; so no worries. Normally the UN Badge should work for ITU. And the OC meetings will be held at ITU's and not UN, so this should also mean that the ITU Badge would also work, since it is going to be in the ITU premises. But anyway, it doesn't hurt to check. All the Best. Bernard SADAKA P.S: It could be a great idea to come earlier to avoid the badging queue :) On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > Yes that is correct – according to the website we will have first to get > our badges and then we will be able to go to the meetings. > > Konstantinos > > > > On 20/02/2009 11:02, "Daniel Dardailler" wrote: > > > > *Just in case anyone hasn't noticed this on the IGF site, the > > consultation will be in the ITU, not at the Palais per normal. ITU has > > its own security procedures so you have to check in there at the box > > shaped Montbrillant building, > > Is it true that we need to go to Montbrillant to register before going to > the > ITU building ? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Lecturer in Law, > GigaNet Membership Chair, > University of Strathclyde, > The Lord Hope Building, > 141 St. James Road, > Glasgow, G4 0LT, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Feb 20 13:56:21 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:56:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP - GigaNet Workshop in Brussels, 11 May 2009 - "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction" Message-ID: [This CFP might be of interest to some of you. Apologies for multiple reception] Dear Colleagues, Please find hereafter and as attached file the preliminary announcement and call for contributions to the 2nd international academic workshop on: "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction". This workshop is organized by GigaNet (the Global Internet Governance Academic Network), in cooperation with three thematic sections of the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA): International and Intercultural Communication (IIC), Communication and Democracy (CD), Communication, Law and Policy (CLP) sections. Building on the success of its 1st edition in Paris, France, in June 2008, this workshop will be held in Brussels, Belgium, on 11 May 2009. Travel information is provided on the workshop website. This workshop will be a great opportunity for the international scientific community involved in the field to meet and exchange ideas based on a survey of current academic projects running in the field. We hope that you will consider participating to the workshop. Workshop website at: http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/ giganetcos/2009brusse. Please distribute widely. Best regards, Meryem Marzouki (Workshop Co-Chair) -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Second International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Organized by GigaNet, in cooperation with ECREA IIC, CD and CLP Sections Brussels, Belgium — 11 May 2009 Preliminary Announcement and Call for Contributions The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in a scholarly workshop to be held in Brussels, Belgium, on 11 May 2009. This full day workshop is organized in cooperation with three thematic sections of the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA): International and Intercultural Communication (IIC), Communication and Democracy (CD), Communication, Law and Policy (CLP) sections. Building on the success of its first edition in Paris, France, in June 2008, the purpose of this workshop is the presentation and discussion of work-in-progress in Internet Governance-related research with the aim to identify emerging research themes and design a research agenda. We are interested in exchanging information and ideas about national and regional projects and networks currently pursuing research on global Internet governance, but also in identifying academic syllabi or other education programs dedicated to these issues, in order to share ideas and forge possible collaborations. Scholars from various academic disciplines and all regions of the world are welcome to contribute to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of collectively building this interdisciplinary research field. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field of global Internet governance. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following topics: involved actors and their interactions; Internet governance institutions and regimes; legal, socio-economical, behavioral and technical regulation means; Internet governance policy issues. Submissions should be sent by 20 March 2009 to Meryem Marzouki (Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr). They should include the name, affiliation, e-mail address and short bio of author(s), along with no more than 500 words of research work description. The program committee will notify applicants by 15 April 2009. To encourage knowledge dissemination, all relevant submissions will be published on the workshop website. Authors of selected submissions will participate at the workshop panel discussions. Program Committee Bart Cammaerts (ECREA-CD), London School of Economics, UK; Raquel Gatto (GigaNet), Pontifícia U. Católica de São Paulo, Brazil; Nanette S. Levinson (GigaNet), American U., USA; Meryem Marzouki (GigaNet), CNRS & U. Pierre et Marie Curie, France; Luciano Morganti (GigaNet & ECREA-IIC), Vrije U. Brussel, Belgium; Katharine Sarikakis (ECREA- CLP), U. of Leeds, UK; JP Singh (GigaNet), Georgetown U., USA; Leo Van Audenhove (GigaNet & ECREA-IIC) , Vrije U. Brussel, Belgium. There is no registration fee for this event. A registration form will be circulated with the program. Practical information on accommodation and low cost travel to Brussels are available on the workshop website: http:// giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse. About GigaNet: giganet.igloogroups.org — About ECREA: www.ecrea.eu :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Brussels2009-CFP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55119 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From jfcallo at isocperu.org Sat Feb 21 13:30:37 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Gracias por admitirme Message-ID: (Spanish) Estimados Miembros: Agradecer el haberme admitido a esta lista y estoy deseoso de compartir e intercambiar experiencias que enriqueceran aun mas el tema de la Gobernanza en Internet. Gracias Atentamente (English) Dear Members: Thanks for having accepted to this list and I am willing to share and exchange experiences that will further enrich the topic of Internet governance. Thanks Sincerely Jose F. Callo Romero Lima - 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 toml at communisphere.com Mon Feb 23 01:27:55 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:27:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Message-ID: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet governance. My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to benefit city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities might fit within the broader governance of the Net. Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since creating Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as the critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of New York whose support we deem essential. To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of directors, established a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcript) of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short leash” on our operation. On our governance page (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors) we discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder model, destined to be local and more hands on. With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see city-TLDs, each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s my expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing for a significant role in the Net’s governance. Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and within this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate and benefit from the thoughts of those on this list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Mon Feb 23 07:36:04 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:36:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Message-ID: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 07:54:34 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:54:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On 2/23/09, Karl E. Peters wrote: > Even little things like what happens if Rome, Georgia gets .rome and > someone in Italy cries foul? Are we going to have a TLD level UDRP and > REALLY foul things up? It seems the only way to protect against that is to > give cities a SLD under their respective ccTLDs and in some cases, a > tertiary LD under their state or provincial SLD. Otherwise, just in the USA > alone, how many Greenvilles will be contending for the ONE corresponding TLD > and what rules would determine the right to it? > This is, at least, a slippery slope!!! Agreed Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, > New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between > city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a > coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a > constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and within > this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged > user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. > > > > There's lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate and benefit > from the thoughts of those on this list. This is also a slippery slope. Are we to have constituencies from every imaginable category of TLD? There could be thousands (eventually). City TLD folks are currently not limited in their "participation in Internet governance processes". I don't see why they need a platform from which to do it now. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 23 10:00:12 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:00:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > This is also a slippery slope. Are we to have constituencies from > every imaginable category of TLD? There could be thousands > (eventually). > > City TLD folks are currently not limited in their "participation in > Internet governance processes". I don't see why they need a platform > from which to do it now. McTim: You are half right, half wrong. ICANN's GNSO has always been flawed by the fact that prospective registries -- that is, businesses or nonprofits who intend to apply for a TLD but do not yet have one -- are completely disenfranchised by the GNSO Constituency structure. They are not eligible for the registry constituency because they are not under contract to ICANN and do not have a TLD in the root. At the same time they are not eligible for user constituencies, either commercial or noncommercial, because they are prospective suppliers, not users. So it is understandable that city TLDs (and other prospective registries) would want to form a new constituency. (That's the half-wrong part). On the half right side, you are correct that ICANN's current approach to the formation of new constituencies is deeply troubling. You are right that "every imaginable category" -- not just of TLDs, but of any and every category of users -- could form constituencies under this logic. You could have a privacy advocates constituency and an anti-privacy constituency, a "denizens of the Alsace-Lorraine" constituency, a "persons with red hair" constituency." This is not an intelligent basis for structuring representation in the GNSO. The problem is not that people can form little subgroups or factions of like-minded people. It is ok to have "thousands" of such groupings if people are interested in forming them on their own as SIGs. The problem is that ICANN's staff wants to link these "imaginable categories" to rigid, difficult to change voting structures in the GNSO. A constituency must be formally organized and formally recognized by the Board and, if ICANN's staff has its way, they will be assigned specific seats on the GNSO Council simply by virtue of the fact that they are a recognized "category" of user or supplier. This won't work. For example, the noncommercial stakeholders group gets 6 seats on the Council. How do you apportion these 6 seats when there are 60 constituencies? Staff has told us that they want a council of these constituencies to meet and decide, though some kind of political negotiation comparable to the carving up of Europe after World War 1, who gets how many seats. What a F***ing waste of time and what a recipe for political conflict. We Noncommercial Users have proposed a simple and elegant solution: don't assign seats to constituencies, let the members of the Stakeholder Group have an election - constituencies can nominate their favored candidates but if they can't win an election by attracting votes from lots of other members they don't get a seat. ICANN's staff doesn't like this idea. Why? in essence they are just being bureaucratic - they don't like it because they dont think it conforms to what the Board ordered them to do. But the Board did not ask them to create a Rube Goldberg constituency structure, it asked them to make it easier to participate in the GNSO and for the GNSO to reflect a broader range of views. Somehow, the staff has confused "adding new constituencies" with "making it easier to participate" and "reflecting a broader range of views." Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 23 10:12:11 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:12:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting in Geneva Message-ID: <8ADE57D3E3D3435197889D09CF70082B@IAN> For those of us in Geneva - Please try to attend a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) during the lunch break. I suggest we grab a large table at the ITU cafeteria and meet from 1.30pm for up to one hour. Agenda should include Taking Stock and the Way forward for IGC ITU activities and CS involvement GAID and CS involvement Anything else people want to raise. Thanks, look forward to seeing you there. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Feb 23 10:42:24 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:42:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_Remot?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_participation_-_participation_=E0_distance?= Message-ID: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> FYI/Pour votre information - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the floor) - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the Secretariat on the YouTube channel : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session (transcripts : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript) - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February 2009. - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Ken L ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Feb 23 10:54:09 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:54:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 10:00 -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > We Noncommercial Users have proposed a simple and elegant solution: > don't assign seats to constituencies, let the members of the > Stakeholder Group have an election - constituencies can nominate their > favored candidates but if they can't win an election by attracting > votes from lots of other members they don't get a seat. i think this is orthogonal to how the constituencies are created or how many of them there are. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Feb 23 10:55:38 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:55:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <8ADE57D3E3D3435197889D09CF70082B@IAN> References: <8ADE57D3E3D3435197889D09CF70082B@IAN> Message-ID: <1235404538.6406.42.camel@bower> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:12 +0100, Ian Peter wrote: > > Please try to attend a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) during the lunch > break. I suggest we grab a large table at the ITU cafeteria and meet > from 1.30pm for up to one hour. > > which cafeteria the one between the two buildings? or the one on the top floor of the tower building (the one we are in). 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 10:56:15 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:56:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_R?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?emote_participation_-_participation_=E0_distance?= In-Reply-To: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: Ken, Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. The Remote participation working group is also following the Open Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We are also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just serach for Open Consulations. We invite all IG community to join these channels! We would also like to remind that our report about remote participation in Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org. Best regards Marília Maciel Remote Participation Working Group On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento wrote: > FYI/Pour votre information > > - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: > The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the > floor) > > - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org > > - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org > > - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the > Secretariat on the YouTube channel : > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU > > - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session > (transcripts : > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript > ) > > - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here > http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. > > - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February > 2009. > > - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. > > More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > > Ken L > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Feb 23 10:55:02 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:55:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_R?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?emote_participation_-_participation_=E0_distance?= In-Reply-To: References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <49A2C6D6.9050307@panos-ao.org> Great Marília - I'm not in Geneva and the webcast is not working well for me all the time - so will also follow you on Twitter. KL Marilia Maciel a écrit : > Ken, > > Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. > The Remote participation working group is also following the Open > Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We > are also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just > serach for Open Consulations. > We invite all IG community to join these channels! > > We would also like to remind that our report about remote > participation in Hyderabad is available on our website: > www.igfremote.org . > > Best regards > Marília Maciel > Remote Participation Working Group > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento > wrote: > > FYI/Pour votre information > > - Webcast address : > http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: The stream > available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the floor) > > - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org > > > - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org > > > - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by > the Secretariat on the YouTube channel : > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU > > - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session > (transcripts : > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript) > > - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here > http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. > > - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 > February 2009. > > - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. > > More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > > Ken L > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1967 - Release Date: 02/23/09 07:17:00 > > -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 http://www.panos-ao.org/ipao/spip.php?rubrique13 www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://www.haayo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 11:04:57 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:04:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_Remote?= =?UTF-8?Q?_participation_-_participation_=C3=A0_distance?= In-Reply-To: References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: hello All, there is the link for liveblogging http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=playaltcast&altcast_code=c1de1c9b4a Rafik On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Ken, > > Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. > The Remote participation working group is also following the Open > Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We are > also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just serach for Open > Consulations. > We invite all IG community to join these channels! > > We would also like to remind that our report about remote participation in > Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org. > > Best regards > Marília Maciel > Remote Participation Working Group > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento wrote: > >> FYI/Pour votre information >> >> - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: >> The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the >> floor) >> >> - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org >> >> - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org >> >> - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the >> Secretariat on the YouTube channel : >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU >> >> - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session >> (transcripts : >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript >> ) >> >> - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here >> http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. >> >> - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February >> 2009. >> >> - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. >> >> More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> Ken L >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 11:08:55 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:08:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_R?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?emote_participation_-_participation_=E0_distance?= In-Reply-To: References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <3AECC3D6-DBA0-4294-B208-96AA1DB33082@datos-personales.org> Marilia, et all I cant access the webcast, though I am following you in Twitter. I am @txitua May be the system only work in PC / windows users? ________ Katitza Rodríguez Pereda International Privacy Project Director Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 tel: +1 202 483 1140 (Ext. 204) http://www.epic.org http://www.thepublicvoice.org katitza (at) datos-personales (dot) org (personal email) On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Ken, > > Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. > The Remote participation working group is also following the Open > Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We > are also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just > serach for Open Consulations. > We invite all IG community to join these channels! > > We would also like to remind that our report about remote > participation in Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org > . > > Best regards > Marília Maciel > Remote Participation Working Group > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento ao.org> wrote: > FYI/Pour votre information > > - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml > (NB: The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream > from the floor) > > - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org > > - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org > > - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by > the Secretariat on the YouTube channel : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU > > - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session > (transcripts : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript) > > - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php > . > > - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 > February 2009. > > - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. > > More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > > Ken L > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Feb 23 11:11:03 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:11:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1235404538.6406.42.camel@bower> References: <8ADE57D3E3D3435197889D09CF70082B@IAN> <1235404538.6406.42.camel@bower> Message-ID: <678AC877-CBA1-48DC-A8CB-416C7C8EE44A@graduateinstitute.ch> a, The main cafeteria is what you're calling in between, the tower space is small and has a limited menu. I'd suggest the former to meet and eat and the latter for a quick coffee post festum, for the view. Bill On Feb 23, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:12 +0100, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Please try to attend a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) during the lunch >> break. I suggest we grab a large table at the ITU cafeteria and meet >> from 1.30pm for up to one hour. >> >> > > which cafeteria the one between the two buildings? > > or the one on the top floor of the tower building (the one we are > in). > > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 23 11:12:56 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:12:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1235404538.6406.42.camel@bower> Message-ID: Sorry - the one between the two buildings Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: 23 February 2009 16:56 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Meeting in Geneva > > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:12 +0100, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Please try to attend a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) during the lunch > > break. I suggest we grab a large table at the ITU cafeteria and meet > > from 1.30pm for up to one hour. > > > > > > which cafeteria the one between the two buildings? > > or the one on the top floor of the tower building (the one we are in). > > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 11:41:14 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:41:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_Remote?= =?UTF-8?Q?_participation_-_participation_=C3=A0_distance?= In-Reply-To: <3AECC3D6-DBA0-4294-B208-96AA1DB33082@datos-personales.org> References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> <3AECC3D6-DBA0-4294-B208-96AA1DB33082@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: hello, there is the correct link http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=c1de1c9b4a please if you tweet, use as hastag #igf so you will be automatically mentionned in liveblogging Rafik On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > Marilia, et all > > I cant access the webcast, though I am following you in Twitter. I am > @txitua > May be the system only work in PC / windows users? > > > > ________ > Katitza Rodríguez Pereda > International Privacy Project Director > Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC > > 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW. Suite 200 > Washington, DC 20009 > > tel: +1 202 483 1140 (Ext. 204) > http://www.epic.org > http://www.thepublicvoice.org > > katitza (at) datos-personales (dot) org (personal email) > > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Ken, >> >> Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. >> The Remote participation working group is also following the Open >> Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We are >> also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just serach for Open >> Consulations. >> We invite all IG community to join these channels! >> >> We would also like to remind that our report about remote participation in >> Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org. >> >> Best regards >> Marília Maciel >> Remote Participation Working Group >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento >> wrote: >> FYI/Pour votre information >> >> - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: >> The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the >> floor) >> >> - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org >> >> - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org >> >> - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the >> Secretariat on the YouTube channel : >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU >> >> - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session >> (transcripts : >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript >> ) >> >> - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here >> http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. >> >> - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February >> 2009. >> >> - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. >> >> More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> Ken L >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Feb 23 11:54:01 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:54:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_R?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?emote_participation_-_participation_=E0_distance?= References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> <3AECC3D6-DBA0-4294-B208-96AA1DB33082@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <268271.20881.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks Rafik I was having similar difficulty to Kaitza Now I can follow Shaila Rao Mistry ________________________________ From: rafik dammak To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Pereda Cc: Marilia Maciel ; Ken Lohento ; gov at wsis-gov.org; africann at afrinic.net Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 8:41:14 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF - Consultations - Geneve - Remote participation - participation à distance hello, there is the correct link http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=c1de1c9b4a please if you tweet, use as hastag #igf so you will be automatically mentionned in liveblogging Rafik On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda wrote: Marilia, et all I cant access the webcast, though I am following you in Twitter. I am @txitua May be the system only work in PC / windows users? ________ Katitza Rodríguez Pereda International Privacy Project Director Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 tel: +1 202 483 1140 (Ext. 204) http://www.epic.org http://www.thepublicvoice.org katitza (at) datos-personales (dot) org (personal email) On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Ken, Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. The Remote participation working group is also following the Open Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We are also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just serach for Open Consulations. We invite all IG community to join these channels! We would also like to remind that our report about remote participation in Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org. Best regards Marília Maciel Remote Participation Working Group On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento wrote: FYI/Pour votre information - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the floor) - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the Secretariat on the YouTube channel : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session (transcripts : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript) - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February 2009. - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Ken L ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Feb 23 12:19:12 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:19:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IGF_-_Consultations_-_Geneve_-_Remote?= =?UTF-8?Q?_participation_-_participation_=C3=A0_distance?= In-Reply-To: <268271.20881.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <49A2C3E0.1050703@panos-ao.org> <3AECC3D6-DBA0-4294-B208-96AA1DB33082@datos-personales.org> <268271.20881.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello All, the liveblogging is finished today but you can access to the tracking at : http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=c1de1c9b4a For tomorrow session the link is : http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=b3250812d1 liveblogging is steup up to catch tweets containing hashtag like #igf, so if you have twitter account and you tweet an update with "igf" it will be published in time at liveblog.everybody is kindly invited to comment and participate. For twitter please follow www.twitter.com/igfremote there is alose a new facebook page : http://www.facebook.com/pages/IGF-Remote-Participation-Working-Group /55834706945?ref=ts Rafik On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:54 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Thanks Rafik > I was having similar difficulty to Kaitza > Now I can follow > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > * > > * > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* rafik dammak > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < > katitza at datos-personales.org> > *Cc:* Marilia Maciel ; Ken Lohento < > klohento at panos-ao.org>; gov at wsis-gov.org; africann at afrinic.net > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2009 8:41:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF - Consultations - Geneve - Remote > participation - participation à distance > > hello, > > there is the correct link > http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=c1de1c9b4a > please if you tweet, use as hastag #igf so you will be automatically > mentionned in liveblogging > > > Rafik > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda < > katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > >> Marilia, et all >> >> I cant access the webcast, though I am following you in Twitter. I am >> @txitua >> May be the system only work in PC / windows users? >> >> >> >> ________ >> Katitza Rodríguez Pereda >> International Privacy Project Director >> Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC >> >> 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW. Suite 200 >> Washington, DC 20009 >> >> tel: +1 202 483 1140 (Ext. 204) >> http://www.epic.org >> http://www.thepublicvoice.org >> >> katitza (at) datos-personales (dot) org (personal email) >> >> >> On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Ken, >>> >>> Thanks for such an informative and useful e-mail. >>> The Remote participation working group is also following the Open >>> Consultations remotely and twittering on our channel (igfremote). We are >>> also live blogging about it, on Cover It Live platform. Just serach for Open >>> Consulations. >>> We invite all IG community to join these channels! >>> >>> We would also like to remind that our report about remote participation >>> in Hyderabad is available on our website: www.igfremote.org. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Marília Maciel >>> Remote Participation Working Group >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Ken Lohento >>> wrote: >>> FYI/Pour votre information >>> >>> - Webcast address : http://www.itu.int/ibs/un/200902igf/index.phtml (NB: >>> The stream available for non ITU Sector members is the stream from the >>> floor) >>> >>> - Questions in English - feb2009q at intgovforum.org >>> >>> - Questions en français - fev2009q at intgovforum.org >>> >>> - A new video concerning the open consultations has been posted by the >>> Secretariat on the YouTube channel : >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcxGSFcozU >>> >>> - IGF Open Consultations Geneva 23 February 2009 Morning Session >>> (transcripts : >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/80-23-24-feb-2009-open-consultations/380-open-consultation-23-feb-morning-transcript >>> ) >>> >>> - The stock taking Questionnaire responses can be viewed here >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008Results.php. >>> >>> - A MAG Meeting will be held after the consultations on 25-26 February >>> 2009. >>> >>> - IGF YouTube http://www.youtube.com/igf. >>> >>> More information/Plus d'information http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >>> >>> Ken L >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Feb 23 17:43:25 2009 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:43:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet governance. IMHO place and city TLD will have as much impact on Internet Governance as the style of the US President's limousine will have on US politics. ie. none. The .us CCTLD was available for a very long time, structured with geographic locations leading to addresses of the type example.new-york.ny.us and do we see an huge upsurge in those addresses? No. Sadly, the organisations and individuals pushing for those types of addresses may well be, in my opinion, kidding themselves about the impact and importance of such addresses. If at all, the inherent geographic specification within the address might limit a potential market's reach rather than extend it, since it would introduce a geographical limit to cyber-space. Then again, perhaps some people will like to be characterised as being from place X or place Y, but rather than trying to divide and categorise the world, shouldn't we think about bringing it together? I don't purport to be holding the universal truth, so your opinions may vary. Best regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Feb 23 20:18:58 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:18:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <151910.24592.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Oh really Karl, have you read any of ICANN's Draft Applicant Guidebook? What's your problem? I know the people from dotBERLIN have been talking to other "Berlins" in the world. So why can't the various Romes of the world discuss how to share a gTLD? Olivier: so your only argument against a new city gTLD is that nobody might not want to use it. Well, that's a risk anyone in a commercial marketplace takes when they release a new product. Maybe you haven't realised, but in ccTLDs such as Germany with over 12 million domain names, it's pretty damn difficult to get a decent domain name for your business or personal use. Given the costs involved, not every little town will ever be able to justify applying for their own gTLD. So in one sense, ICANN is right to charge a larger fee for applying as it keeps out the less serious contenders. I'm not sure what slippery slope you're on Karl, but it's not one dealing with reality. David ________________________________ From: Karl E. Peters To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Monday, 23 February, 2009 11:36:04 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Even little things like what happens if Rome, Georgia gets .rome and someone in Italy cries foul? Are we going to have a TLD level UDRP and REALLY foul things up? It seems the only way to protect against that is to give cities a SLD under their respective ccTLDs and in some cases, a tertiary LD under their state or provincial SLD. Otherwise, just in the USA alone, how many Greenvilles will be contending for the ONE corresponding TLD and what rules would determine the right to it? This is, at least, a slippery slope!!! -Karl E. Peters, President Top Level Domain Association, Inc. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance From: "Thomas Lowenhaupt" Date: Mon, February 23, 2009 1:27 am To: With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet governance. My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to benefit city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities might fit within the broader governance of the Net. Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since creating Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as the critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of New York whose support we deem essential. To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of directors, established a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcript) of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short leash” on our operation. On our governance page (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors)we discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder model, destined to be local and more hands on. With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see city-TLDs, each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s my expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing for a significant role in the Net’s governance. Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and within this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate and benefit from the thoughts of those on this list. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. Find out more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 22:24:41 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:24:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: Hello Olivier, On 2/24/09, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > > > > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, > it's time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet > governance. > > > > > > IMHO place and city TLD will have as much impact on Internet Governance as > the style of the US President's limousine will have on US politics. ie. > none. Agreed, with the caveat below. > > > > The .us CCTLD was available for a very long time, structured with geographic > locations leading to addresses of the type example.new-york.ny.us and do we > see an huge upsurge in those addresses? No. > > > > Sadly, the organisations and individuals pushing for those types of > addresses may well be, in my opinion, kidding themselves about the impact > and importance of such addresses. As has been pointed out to me off list, the IG issue here is offensive and defensive registrations. These namespaces are just more places where folk who want to protect their brands will have to spend time and money to register the domain they already have. The people on this list advocating for these spaces have high ideals, but, in the end, domaining is a billion $/Euro industry. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Mon Feb 23 23:01:13 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:01:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Message-ID: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 23 23:20:19 2009 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:20:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: Yes, Geographic name TLDs are making some concern to the cities and other local governments (prefectures, villages etc) in Japan, and our government, MIC, started a "study group" with some of these city gov officials as participants, with ccTLD and other Internet related folks and pundits under the info-com council, a sort of regulatory committee. "What if someone outside Japan applied for dot Kyoto, or any other potentially valuable name as gTLD?" "How should we react?" How can we monitor all of these? Do we need to organize some sort of "monitoring" under the central gov function, or shall we do it with private-sector led activities? Is it really a bad thing? Or does it promote our tourism and export? I agree, it is opening up a new venue for the "Internet governance". izumi 2009/2/23 Thomas Lowenhaupt : > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, > it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet > governance. > > > > My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will > choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to benefit > city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small > businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the > creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat > their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see > their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, > and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of > conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. > > > > That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure > for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities > might fit within the broader governance of the Net. > > > > Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re > still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since creating > Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as the > critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the > inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s > operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of New > York whose support we deem essential. > > > > To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of directors, established > a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials > about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's > concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcript) > of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our > discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short > leash” on our operation. > > > > On our governance page > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors) we > discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public > participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that > direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder > model, destined to be local and more hands on. > > > > With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see city-TLDs, > each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a > mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s my > expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now > 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will > reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and > effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing for > a significant role in the Net’s governance. > > > > Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, > New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between > city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a > coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a > constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and within > this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged > user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. > > > > There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate and benefit > from the thoughts of those on this list. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Mon Feb 23 23:25:42 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:25:42 +0700 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <200902241125.42465.nhklein@gmx.net> Just a lanuage question, from someone who is not a native speaker of English: On Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:01:13 Karl E. Peters wrote: > > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with > > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, > > it's time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on > > Internet governance. > [snip] > and less-respected USA, thanks to Obama and friends, [snip] > Karl E. Peters, President > Top Level Domain Association, Inc. You mean "thanks to Obama and friends" the lack of respect for the USA has been reversed? Or did I get your wording wrong - and you are not aware of what is going on outside your own Top Level Domain Association, Inc.? Norbert Klein Cambodia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 24 00:38:20 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:38:20 +0500 Subject: [governance] 3 global news items to create discourse on Internet Governance Message-ID: <701af9f70902232138i1af31c18wb3dab844e633d7a7@mail.gmail.com> Three interesting news items, one about a Chinese Blogger, Skype's Loophole in EU and another about the Irish ISPs blocking p2p file sharing that are a discourse in the ever-changing perceptions and practices in the world of IG Bloggers head death investigation team By Cai Ke (China Daily/Xinhua) Updated: 2009-02-21 08:01 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/21/content_7498998.htm Authorities in Yunnan province are hoping two of the country's most popular bloggers can help them unravel the mystery of a man who died in police custody. Zhao Li, who writes a blog under the name Fengzhimoduan, and Dong Rubin, better known as Bianmin, were named director and deputy director of an investigation committee that was sent to Jinning county, Yunnan province on Friday to probe the suspicious death. Skype calls' immunity to police phone tapping threatened Suspicious phone conversations on Skype could be targeted for tapping as part of a pan-European crackdown. Paul Meller (IDG News Service) 23/02/2009 Suspicious phone conversations on Skype could be targeted for tapping as part of a pan-European crackdown on what law authorities believe is a massive technical loophole in current wiretapping laws, allowing criminals to communicate without fear of being overheard by the police. http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/277460/skype_calls_immunity_police_phone_tapping_threatened Music-swapping sites to be blocked by internet providers Sunday, February 22, 2009 By Adrian Weckler Irish internet users are to be blocked from accessing music swapping websites, as internet service providers bow to pressure from the music industry. Eircom, the country’s biggest internet provider, is to start blocking its internet customers from accessing music swapping. http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=39782-qqqx=1.asp -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From krischenowski at dotberlin.de Tue Feb 24 01:45:02 2009 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:45:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <02a001c9964b$6c0a55a0$441f00e0$@de> Izumi, I do understand your concerns but I don't agree on them. The second Draft Applicant Guidebook clearly states that every (!)TLD application will be reviewed by a Geographic Names Panel (GNP), so in my view it is nearly impossible to smuggle any geo name through the process. I also think the GNP will use Google to find out if the names applied for is identical to city, county or other geo name of importance. And there is additionally an objection process which allows third parties to file an objection or inform ICANNs "Independent Objector" that something is wrong with the name applied for. ... and finally do not have any doubt that people from the Japanese or global Internet community will have a look on all TLD applications. In any (!) case of a geo name the respective goverments / authorities need to have at least no objections. Even in the case the very popular German Pop Band Tokyo Hotel would like to acquire .tokyo and the .tokyo Initiative does not apply in the same round, there is not way around to get a geo name quick and easy! I hope my perspective gave you confidence that a geo name accidentally slips through the system. By the way, if you need some information how we in Berlin manage to set-up the .berlin name space, we would appreciate to share our knowledge with you. A couple of cities already invited us to consult them a bit. Best regards, Dirk (.berlin) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 05:20 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Yes, Geographic name TLDs are making some concern to the cities and other local governments (prefectures, villages etc) in Japan, and our government, MIC, started a "study group" with some of these city gov officials as participants, with ccTLD and other Internet related folks and pundits under the info-com council, a sort of regulatory committee. "What if someone outside Japan applied for dot Kyoto, or any other potentially valuable name as gTLD?" "How should we react?" How can we monitor all of these? Do we need to organize some sort of "monitoring" under the central gov function, or shall we do it with private-sector led activities? Is it really a bad thing? Or does it promote our tourism and export? I agree, it is opening up a new venue for the "Internet governance". izumi 2009/2/23 Thomas Lowenhaupt : > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, > it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet > governance. > > > > My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will > choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to benefit > city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small > businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the > creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat > their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see > their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, > and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of > conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. > > > > That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure > for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities > might fit within the broader governance of the Net. > > > > Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re > still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since creating > Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as the > critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the > inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s > operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of New > York whose support we deem essential. > > > > To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of directors, established > a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials > about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's > concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcri pt) > of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our > discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short > leash” on our operation. > > > > On our governance page > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors) we > discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public > participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that > direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder > model, destined to be local and more hands on. > > > > With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see city-TLDs, > each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a > mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s my > expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now > 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will > reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and > effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing for > a significant role in the Net’s governance. > > > > Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, > New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between > city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a > coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a > constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and within > this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged > user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. > > > > There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate and benefit > from the thoughts of those on this list. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Feb 24 01:49:32 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:49:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: In message , at 23:43:25 on Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond writes >IMHO place and city TLD will have as much impact on Internet Governance >as the style of the US President's limousine will have on US politics. >ie. none His new helicopters ($11bn if you hadn't noticed) were in the news again this morning. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Feb 24 03:50:39 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:50:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance References: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <355086.19885.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Oh Karl, come on... your comment "but the combination of a vastly weakened and less-respected USA, thanks to Obama and friends" is just childish and as uninformed as much of the rest of the discussion on this issue. If you look around the world, the position of the USA has been markedly ENHANCED since the election of Obama. As for trademark issues, sure, these have to be considered. But I'd have sympathy for the issues raised by trademark holders if they were registering trademarks in the 200+ ccTLDs around the world. In reality, until there is a critical mass of registrations or an abuse of a trademark, in many new gTLDs trademark holders will ignore registering or protecting their domain names for trademarks. As for the issue of new helicopters - what relevance does this have to the debate. If they are required, the government should buy them. It's not an internet governance issue. David ________________________________ From: Karl E. Peters To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Sent: Tuesday, 24 February, 2009 3:01:13 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, > it's time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet > governance. Regarding the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet governance: As I alluded to in my earlier post on this subject, there is a potential for yet another version of the SLD inspired UDRP process to determine "rightful" registrants of the TLDs. That will be altogether messy enough on its own, but there is another component that stands to be a bit messy that probably only I would bring up here at this time. That is the FACT that many TLDs are already running on a multitude of roots, some better than others, and plan to challenge the DOC/NTIA and ICANN (if it still holds any authority after it walks out from under the long protective wings of US Government mandate by not renewing the JTA this summer) for any taking of an operational TLD without some reasonable sharing or purchase agreement for the original operator of the TLD in another root. The theft of .biz and ultimate sale of it to NeuStar was a literal crime on the part of ICANN and will not be allowed without a fight this time around. With ICANN giving up its assured position in the Internet to try and forge one of its own as a fully private entity in a time of great discontent with ICANN and an already strong interest by many parties to form their own roots, the internet world is changing and will reach outside the virtual world and into the courts in the event of the same problems this time. As investment people are prone to say, "past performance does not assure like future performance". Contrary to popular belief, this issue may bring about more internet governance issues, at least for a time, than net neutrality and a number of other issues combined; especially if it is accented by the revocation of authority from ICANN when it leaves its benefactor's warm and cozy wing. I am well aware that there are few here who feel anything could ever happen to challenge the position of ICANN in the operation of a world internet; but the combination of a vastly weakened and less-respected USA, thanks to Obama and friends, and an ICANN trying to make it on its own, even when under so much fire and in a time of internet division, not unity, there may well be many surprises for many of you coming up pretty soon. -Karl E. Peters, President Top Level Domain Association, Inc. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Feb 24 04:20:29 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:20:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <1f9674ed0902240120g6f3893d2j37c821aa4d2f4a9d@mail.gmail.com> 2009/2/24 McTim : > As has been pointed out to me off list, the IG issue here is offensive > and defensive registrations.  These namespaces are just more places > where folk who want to protect their brands will have to spend time > and money to register the domain they already have.  The people on > this list advocating for these spaces have high ideals, but, in the > end, domaining is a billion $/Euro industry. Who said so? ICANN ? The only thing to do is to forget about the ICANN business model, based upon others' names ransoning. Managing a TLD is managing a zone. There millions of people managing a zone nowadays, and this is not a big industry. Controlling TLDs is a very efficient way to control cultural dissemination and empowerment, and locally limit e-commerce competition. The Clinton's "shaping the world, shaping the mind" policy reflects a well established and known US cultural reflex. The problem is that the sleeping European atonism only answers the NA dynamism. China has created its own coexisting DNS. Others might follow. For decades the Internet technology is blocked by the monolateralism of an IETF vision which is limited to a decentralised governance architecture under the legal US definition of the Internet. The TCP/IP technology was not designed with this in mind, and is much, much more powerful. It takes a lot of legal/political efforts to make believe that the world digital ecosystem virtual root is to be limited by the unique formal root file server system. The real issue with the ICANN's "Internet for the Rich" proposition is that the next technological step is the Intersem (Internet Semantic and Multilingual Network System) and that by essence the semantic strata can only be distributed, by the people for the people along the WSIS vision of a people's centered societal systemic. The difficulty is to introduce it in a way that does not confuse the Internet strata. It took more than 15 years to stabilise the introduction of the Internet strata over the "Intertel" strata - and called for the deregulation in the middle. Today, it will probably call for a deicannization we might observe this year (JPA, IGF review, etc.). jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Feb 24 04:50:36 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:50:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <355086.19885.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <355086.19885.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <355086.19885.qm at web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, at 00:50:39 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009, David Goldstein writes >As for the issue of new helicopters - what relevance does this have to >the debate. If they are required, the government should buy them. It's >not an internet governance issue. That's the point, Obama said he hadn't ever had a helicopter before, and the current ones seemed fine to him. More particularly he was being criticised by the Republicans regarding the cost, when it was Bush who originally signed the order! It's politics, of course, but so is Internet Governance. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 24 06:49:16 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:49:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1f9674ed0902240120g6f3893d2j37c821aa4d2f4a9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <1f9674ed0902240120g6f3893d2j37c821aa4d2f4a9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/24/09, JFC Morfin wrote: > 2009/2/24 McTim : > > > As has been pointed out to me off list, the IG issue here is offensive > > and defensive registrations. These namespaces are just more places > > where folk who want to protect their brands will have to spend time > > and money to register the domain they already have. The people on > > this list advocating for these spaces have high ideals, but, in the > > end, domaining is a billion $/Euro industry. > > > Who said so? I saw this just this morning: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/research-markets-web-domain-registration/story.aspx?guid={744AA1E1-9A90-4169-A850-7CE0A0961938}&dist=msr_1 Research and Markets: Web Domain Registration Markets 2009-2011 Last update: 7:03 a.m. EST Feb. 23, 2009 DUBLIN, Ireland, Feb 23, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Research and Markets ( http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/a0525d/map_research_forec) has announced the addition of the "MAP Research Forecasts: Domain Registration Markets 2009-2011" report to their offering. The world's first report on the size, state and future of the global domain registration industry. Research results show that by the end of 2008, the overall industry will have a market value of $3.6 billion (all figures in $US), forecast to increase to $5.3 billion by 2011. ICANN ? > > The only thing to do is to forget about the ICANN business model, > based upon others' names ransoning. Hmmmm, lots of people making lots of money...I am sure they will be happy to ditch this model for you! > Managing a TLD is managing a zone. Indeed > There millions of people managing a zone nowadays, and this is not a > big industry. ??? It's a HUGE industry! > Controlling TLDs is a very efficient way to control cultural > dissemination and empowerment, and locally limit e-commerce > competition. The Clinton's "shaping the world, shaping the mind" > policy reflects a well established and known US cultural reflex. The > problem is that the sleeping European atonism only answers the NA > dynamism. China has created its own coexisting DNS. Others might > follow. I can't parse this, sorry. > > For decades the Internet technology is blocked by the monolateralism > of an IETF vision which is limited to a decentralised governance > architecture under the legal US definition of the Internet. Has the US legally defined the Internet? The TCP/IP > technology was not designed with this in mind, and is much, much more > powerful. It takes a lot of legal/political efforts to make believe > that the world digital ecosystem virtual root is to be limited by the > unique formal root file server system. > > The real issue with the ICANN's "Internet for the Rich" proposition is > that the next technological step is the Intersem (Internet Semantic > and Multilingual Network System) and that by essence the semantic > strata can only be distributed, by the people for the people along the > WSIS vision of a people's centered societal systemic. The difficulty > is to introduce it in a way that does not confuse the Internet strata. > It took more than 15 years to stabilise the introduction of the > Internet strata over the "Intertel" strata - and called for the > deregulation in the middle. Today, it will probably call for a > deicannization we might observe this year (JPA, IGF review, etc.). ICANN will be stronger by ending the JPA at some point, it's not "deicannization" at all. Are the helicopters black where you are? -- Cheers, McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Feb 24 07:06:54 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:06:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <1f9674ed0902240120g6f3893d2j37c821aa4d2f4a9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <318072.84713.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Some people make lots of money out of domain names, but there are many existing small registries that don't and "run on the smell of an oily rag". For a list dedicated to international internet governance issues there is a strong focus on people making lots of money and big business. Some people/organisations will propose establishing a community gTLD (city, region, cause) for a modest return. Some will want to make lots of money. There will be several differing models with differing aims. It's rather obvious the domain name industry will grow significantly in size in coming years. More registrations, even without new TLDs, will mean this is so. And this takes into account declining prices, mostly, for registering domain names. Who would have thought otherwise? There are around 1.5 billion people online now with a total world population of around 6.75 billion. The former is growing much faster than the latter. It's not rocket science that the domain name industry, and number of domain names registered, will grow dramtically. David ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: JFC Morfin Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 24 February, 2009 10:49:16 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance On 2/24/09, JFC Morfin wrote: > 2009/2/24 McTim : > > > As has been pointed out to me off list, the IG issue here is offensive > > and defensive registrations. These namespaces are just more places > > where folk who want to protect their brands will have to spend time > > and money to register the domain they already have. The people on > > this list advocating for these spaces have high ideals, but, in the > > end, domaining is a billion $/Euro industry. > > > Who said so? I saw this just this morning: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/research-markets-web-domain-registration/story.aspx?guid={744AA1E1-9A90-4169-A850-7CE0A0961938}&dist=msr_1 Research and Markets: Web Domain Registration Markets 2009-2011 Last update: 7:03 a.m. EST Feb. 23, 2009 DUBLIN, Ireland, Feb 23, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Research and Markets ( http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/a0525d/map_research_forec) has announced the addition of the "MAP Research Forecasts: Domain Registration Markets 2009-2011" report to their offering. The world's first report on the size, state and future of the global domain registration industry. Research results show that by the end of 2008, the overall industry will have a market value of $3.6 billion (all figures in $US), forecast to increase to $5.3 billion by 2011. ICANN ? > > The only thing to do is to forget about the ICANN business model, > based upon others' names ransoning. Hmmmm, lots of people making lots of money...I am sure they will be happy to ditch this model for you! > Managing a TLD is managing a zone. Indeed > There millions of people managing a zone nowadays, and this is not a > big industry. ??? It's a HUGE industry! > Controlling TLDs is a very efficient way to control cultural > dissemination and empowerment, and locally limit e-commerce > competition. The Clinton's "shaping the world, shaping the mind" > policy reflects a well established and known US cultural reflex. The > problem is that the sleeping European atonism only answers the NA > dynamism. China has created its own coexisting DNS. Others might > follow. I can't parse this, sorry. > > For decades the Internet technology is blocked by the monolateralism > of an IETF vision which is limited to a decentralised governance > architecture under the legal US definition of the Internet. Has the US legally defined the Internet? The TCP/IP > technology was not designed with this in mind, and is much, much more > powerful. It takes a lot of legal/political efforts to make believe > that the world digital ecosystem virtual root is to be limited by the > unique formal root file server system. > > The real issue with the ICANN's "Internet for the Rich" proposition is > that the next technological step is the Intersem (Internet Semantic > and Multilingual Network System) and that by essence the semantic > strata can only be distributed, by the people for the people along the > WSIS vision of a people's centered societal systemic. The difficulty > is to introduce it in a way that does not confuse the Internet strata. > It took more than 15 years to stabilise the introduction of the > Internet strata over the "Intertel" strata - and called for the > deregulation in the middle. Today, it will probably call for a > deicannization we might observe this year (JPA, IGF review, etc.). ICANN will be stronger by ending the JPA at some point, it's not "deicannization" at all. Are the helicopters black where you are? -- Cheers, McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Feb 24 10:18:08 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:18:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] No speak English In-Reply-To: <200902241125.42465.nhklein@gmx.net> References: <20090223210113.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.992831311d.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <200902241125.42465.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20090224101808.qcd1zsako4g8g4go@www.isocperu.org> Mr. Klein: No speak perfect English. Native is Spanish Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru Quoting Norbert Klein : > Just a lanuage question, from someone who is not a native speaker of English: > > > > On Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:01:13 Karl E. Peters wrote: > >> > With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with >> > cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, >> > it's time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on >> > Internet governance. >> > > [snip] > >> and less-respected USA, thanks to Obama and friends, > > [snip] > >> Karl E. Peters, President >> Top Level Domain Association, Inc. > > You mean "thanks to Obama and friends" the lack of respect for the USA has > been reversed? Or did I get your wording wrong - and you are not aware of > what is going on outside your own Top Level Domain Association, Inc.? > > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Tue Feb 24 11:06:07 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:06:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal IGF mechanism through DC Message-ID: <49A41AEF.7000509@mdpi.net> Hello I have received a few requests to have the proposal I made this morning to be posted in writting. This is the written basis of my oral speech, a few words might have been skipped during my talk and conversely. Best Francis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Muguet IGF Open Consultations 24 February 2009 Geneva IGF PROCEDURE PROPOSAL I am the IGF focal point of the Linguistic Diversity Dynamic Coalition, and chair, co-chair, webmaster of various WSIS working groups that are still active to various extent. I am speaking in my personal capacity. I am going to be brutally honest in my assessment and then propose a pragmatic solution. While being supported by the majority of its participants, the IGF process is nevertheless in a difficult position, because its usefulness is criticized from two parties. From one side, there are stakeholders, that are more in favor of an intergovernmental process because they feel that there is a lack of output, in particular in terms of recommendations. On the other side, there are stakeholders who perceive the IGF as annoyance that could be avoided, and would be glad to revert to the old ways before the WSIS. Both sides, could, from outside the IGF process, at the CSTD level, the ECOSOC level, impose an external review. According to the Tunis Agenda : /*76.*// //*We ask the UN Secretary-General*// to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in //_formal consultation with Forum participants_//, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard//./ I agree with Markus Kummer that normally all review processes are performed by people that are not stakeholders directly involved in the activity under review. Even a 'internal review" means usually review by people in the same organization, with no outsiders, but not by the very people involved in the activity. Whatever the type of review, it is unavoidable that the extent to which each point of the mandate is going to be precisely assessed. It is clear also the review report is going to be the basis of the recommendations of the UN Secretary General is going to send, along with the review report, to the UN general assembly who is going to have the final say. Let us examine briefly the Tunis agenda and assess the progress that have been made. Concerning IGF organization : / //78. The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all stakeholders and relevant parti// 2. //establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF//, / *not fulfilled, *no bureau has been established, Concerning the IGF mandate /*7**2. We ask the UN Secretary-General*, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue---called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:/ /5. // Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.// /*Not fulfilled*. There is no advisory document in the name of IGF, or from the IGF, on this topic /7. // //Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.// /*The point is not fulfilled* at all. /9. //Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.// /*Not fulfilled. *There is no assessment document in the name of IGF on this topic / /. /12. //Publish its proceedings// / OK, fulfilled partially, Are transcripts proceedings ? It might be supplemented by a scientific proceeding ( it is suggested a special issue of /Future Internet/ (ISSN 1999-5903), a new open access journal where contributions are formatted in terms of papers.). Personally I see that the un-fulfillment of articles 5, 7 and 9 of the mandate is linked to the lack of establishment of a bureau. Since there is no bureau, no rules of procedures can be determined so that documents , statements, recommendations can be produced in the name of the IGF. It appeared to me, for a long time, as a stalemate without solution. . At the end of the Hyderabad meeting, I envisioned a way that could offer a pragmatic compromise with the help of the Dynamic Coalitions, a completely unexpected concept that arose during the IGF .and I am developing further this idea now Considering key article 7 : /Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, /It could be considered that the creation of Dynamic Coalition on some issues pertains to the task of identifying emerging issues. ( emerging : that emerge from the debate to differentiate from emergent issues, meaning new, novel topics ) . _By facilitating the creation of Dynamic Coalitions recognized by the secretariat and listed on the IGF web site, the IGF has fulfill its mandate to _/_Identify emerging issues._/The dynamic coalitions are effectively bringing the issues to /the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public/. So this works. / and, where appropriate, make recommendations./ following this line of reasoning, it is the dynamic coalitions that are making recommendations. The set of the DC recommendations is regrouped in one document entitled : _Recommendation __*at*__ the IGF._ The *at * is put in bold instead of *of* to make it clear that it is the recommendations made by the IGF entities that have been recognized by the IGF as dealing with emerging issues. The Recommendation *at* the IGF does not have to be in agreement with one another, depending on each DC approach. In addition The MAG could held sessions dedicated to the agreement of DCs, and those sessions be called Bureau session, since in some sense, there are dealing with procedural issues that may lead to recommendation *at* the IGF. /5. Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world./ may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing advisory documents for this topic. Similarly, the set of advices of each DC could be regrouped in a document called : _Advices __*at *__the IGF concerning ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world._ and also /9. Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes./ may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing promotion and assessment documents for this topic. Similarly, the set of documents of each DC be regrouped in one general document called : _Assessement __*at *__the IGF concerning the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.._ and in this way the IGF could be considered as having fulfilled its entire mandate. The IGF process has not lived up to the expectations of many, but also to the fears of many... Its role is crucial, and the IGF must be continued. Now considering the consultations process since the DC are playing a formal role in the IGF, the / //_formal consultation with Forum participants_/ could be conducted, possibly partially, through the dynamic coalitions. In this way, we have a legal and political coherence both for the implementation of the mandate and the consultation. ------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Feb 24 11:37:12 2009 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:37:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <02a001c9964b$6c0a55a0$441f00e0$@de> References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <02a001c9964b$6c0a55a0$441f00e0$@de> Message-ID: Dirk, I appreciate your comment below. The meeting at the ministry was held on Feb 3, well before the second Draft guidebook was released. I have not yet read that one, thus again thank you for reminding that, but I still think some of the concerns may remain. So many geo names are at the same time used for more generic products or services, thus how far we define geo names are not always that clear. There are competing names, such as USA and OBAMA are two legitimate citie names in Japan. Not all geo names are so distinct, such as Berlin or Kyoto. What if the Geo Name Panel does not find an application as geo name, even after using Google, you need a subjective judgement, and you cannot go to 1200th entry of Google which only refers it as geo name ... etc, etc. I don't mean we can solve all of these problems, or we should, but just wanted to share some of the concerns our city reps in Japan expressed, and we need to address these concerns in one way or other. best, izumi 2009/2/24 Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN : > Izumi, > > I do understand your concerns but I don't agree on them. The second Draft > Applicant Guidebook clearly states that every (!)TLD application will be > reviewed by a Geographic Names Panel (GNP), so in my view it is nearly > impossible to smuggle any geo name through the process. I also think the GNP > will use Google to find out if the names applied for is identical to city, > county or other geo name of importance. And there is additionally an > objection process which allows third parties to file an objection or inform > ICANNs "Independent Objector" that something is wrong with the name applied > for. ... and finally do not have any doubt that people from the Japanese or > global Internet community will have a look on all TLD applications. > > In any (!) case of a geo name the respective goverments / authorities need > to have at least no objections. > > Even in the case the very popular German Pop Band Tokyo Hotel would like to > acquire .tokyo and the .tokyo Initiative does not apply in the same round, > there is not way around to get a geo name quick and easy! > > I hope my perspective gave you confidence that a geo name accidentally slips > through the system. > > By the way, if you need some information how we in Berlin manage to set-up > the .berlin name space, we would appreciate to share our knowledge with you. > A couple of cities already invited us to consult them a bit. > > Best regards, > > Dirk (.berlin) > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi > AIZU > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 05:20 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance > > Yes, Geographic name TLDs are making some concern to the cities and other > local governments (prefectures, villages etc) in Japan, and our government, > MIC, started a "study group" with some of these city gov officials as > participants, with ccTLD and other Internet related folks and pundits > under the info-com council, a sort of regulatory committee. > > "What if someone outside Japan applied for dot Kyoto, or any other > potentially valuable name as gTLD?" "How should we react?" > How can we monitor all of these? Do we need to organize some > sort of "monitoring" under the central gov function, or shall we do it > with private-sector led activities? Is it really a bad thing? Or does > it promote our tourism and export? > > I agree, it is opening up a new venue for the "Internet governance". > > izumi > > 2009/2/23 Thomas Lowenhaupt : >> With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with >> cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, >> it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet >> governance. >> >> >> >> My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will >> choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to > benefit >> city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small >> businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the >> creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat >> their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see >> their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, >> and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of >> conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. >> >> >> >> That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure >> for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities >> might fit within the broader governance of the Net. >> >> >> >> Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re >> still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since > creating >> Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as > the >> critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the >> inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s >> operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of > New >> York whose support we deem essential. >> >> >> >> To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of > directors, established >> a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials >> about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's >> concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript >> > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcri > pt) >> of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our >> discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short >> leash” on our operation. >> >> >> >> On our governance page >> (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors) we >> discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public >> participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that >> direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder >> model, destined to be local and more hands on. >> >> >> >> With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see > city-TLDs, >> each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a >> mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s > my >> expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now >> 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will >> reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and >> effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing > for >> a significant role in the Net’s governance. >> >> >> >> Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, >> New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between >> city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a >> coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a >> constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and > within >> this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged >> user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. >> >> >> >> There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate > and benefit >> from the thoughts of those on this list. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > > -- >                        >> Izumi Aizu << > >          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                  Japan >                                 * * * * * >           << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 24 13:17:59 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:17:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > i think this is orthogonal to how the constituencies are > created or how > many of them there are. > > a. This is the third or fourth time I have heard that assertion made, but no one that makes it has ever bothered to define and propose (in writing) a structure that gives you lots of constituencies and 6 Council seats without doing it the way we propose. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Feb 24 13:22:17 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:22:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <02a001c9964b$6c0a55a0$441f00e0$@de> Message-ID: <1f9674ed0902241022y5d6351f3x621c68be0267a4bd@mail.gmail.com> 2009/2/24 Izumi AIZU : > There are competing names, such as USA and OBAMA > are two legitimate citie names in Japan. > > Not all geo names are so distinct, such as Berlin or Kyoto. > > What if the Geo Name Panel does not find an application > as geo name, even after using Google, you need a subjective > judgement, and you cannot go to 1200th entry of Google > which only refers it as geo name ... etc, etc. Will auction them. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From krischenowski at dotberlin.de Tue Feb 24 15:51:45 2009 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:51:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <059801c9957f$de1fc8e0$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <02a001c9964b$6c0a55a0$441f00e0$@de> Message-ID: <037b01c996c1$b53406b0$1f9c1410$@de> Izumi, you are right. For instance the case Washington Mutual (god may bless the company which was going bankrupt late 2008) and the city of Washington. But should you prohibit using geo names for this reason? We have the geo name panel and this is a progress for any government and the Internet community, I guess. Since money is involved and needs to be involved (the applicant has to present a viable business plan) in most new TLDs (otherwise no one would care about them) a global audience is having a look on every single TLD application. If there is a minimal doubt that a string would infringe someone's rights, there will be a posting and alarm on this. In today's world nearly nothing is hidden, even the most rural place name on earth. I would trust this "institution" more than any other one in the world. Best regards, Dirk 2008 bancruptcy -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 17:37 An: krischenowski at dotberlin.de Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Karla Valente Betreff: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance Dirk, I appreciate your comment below. The meeting at the ministry was held on Feb 3, well before the second Draft guidebook was released. I have not yet read that one, thus again thank you for reminding that, but I still think some of the concerns may remain. So many geo names are at the same time used for more generic products or services, thus how far we define geo names are not always that clear. There are competing names, such as USA and OBAMA are two legitimate citie names in Japan. Not all geo names are so distinct, such as Berlin or Kyoto. What if the Geo Name Panel does not find an application as geo name, even after using Google, you need a subjective judgement, and you cannot go to 1200th entry of Google which only refers it as geo name ... etc, etc. I don't mean we can solve all of these problems, or we should, but just wanted to share some of the concerns our city reps in Japan expressed, and we need to address these concerns in one way or other. best, izumi 2009/2/24 Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN : > Izumi, > > I do understand your concerns but I don't agree on them. The second Draft > Applicant Guidebook clearly states that every (!)TLD application will be > reviewed by a Geographic Names Panel (GNP), so in my view it is nearly > impossible to smuggle any geo name through the process. I also think the GNP > will use Google to find out if the names applied for is identical to city, > county or other geo name of importance. And there is additionally an > objection process which allows third parties to file an objection or inform > ICANNs "Independent Objector" that something is wrong with the name applied > for. ... and finally do not have any doubt that people from the Japanese or > global Internet community will have a look on all TLD applications. > > In any (!) case of a geo name the respective goverments / authorities need > to have at least no objections. > > Even in the case the very popular German Pop Band Tokyo Hotel would like to > acquire .tokyo and the .tokyo Initiative does not apply in the same round, > there is not way around to get a geo name quick and easy! > > I hope my perspective gave you confidence that a geo name accidentally slips > through the system. > > By the way, if you need some information how we in Berlin manage to set-up > the .berlin name space, we would appreciate to share our knowledge with you. > A couple of cities already invited us to consult them a bit. > > Best regards, > > Dirk (.berlin) > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi > AIZU > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 05:20 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance > > Yes, Geographic name TLDs are making some concern to the cities and other > local governments (prefectures, villages etc) in Japan, and our government, > MIC, started a "study group" with some of these city gov officials as > participants, with ccTLD and other Internet related folks and pundits > under the info-com council, a sort of regulatory committee. > > "What if someone outside Japan applied for dot Kyoto, or any other > potentially valuable name as gTLD?" "How should we react?" > How can we monitor all of these? Do we need to organize some > sort of "monitoring" under the central gov function, or shall we do it > with private-sector led activities? Is it really a bad thing? Or does > it promote our tourism and export? > > I agree, it is opening up a new venue for the "Internet governance". > > izumi > > 2009/2/23 Thomas Lowenhaupt : >> With the ICANN having deemed cities eligible to develop TLDs, and with >> cities such as Barcelona, Berlin, New York, and Paris lining up for TLDs, >> it’s time to consider the place and impact city-TLDs will have on Internet >> governance. >> >> >> >> My presumption in presenting the following scenario is that cities will >> choose to put their TLDs to use for their long term development: to > benefit >> city organization and governance, communities, neighborhoods, small >> businesses, residents, and their global “findability,” all toward the >> creation of economically viable and livable cities; and not merely treat >> their TLDs as monetization opportunities. Further, that cities will see >> their TLDs as community / civic resources, as vital as air, water, roads, >> and education systems are to their future. And we see the formation of >> conservator or trustee systems to assure their wise management. >> >> >> >> That said, let me review our experience developing a governance structure >> for the .nyc TLD, albeit a work in progress, and then project where cities >> might fit within the broader governance of the Net. >> >> >> >> Creating a governance structure for a city TLD is new territory and we’re >> still fashioning structures to facilitate the TLD’s efficacy. Since > creating >> Connecting.nyc Inc. as a not-for-profit in 2006 we’ve seen governance as > the >> critical factor in determining the TLD’s success: important both to the >> inclusion of a diversity of viewpoints in planning and directing the TLD’s >> operation, and to receiving the approval and cooperation of the city of > New >> York whose support we deem essential. >> >> >> >> To date we’ve recruited a great core for our board of > directors, established >> a Resident Advisory Network, and are in discussions with city officials >> about adding several ex-officio seats. To gain a feel for the city's >> concerns about the TLD’s governance, read the transcript >> > (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/council-hearing-transcri > pt) >> of our October 17 hearing before the City Council, in particular our >> discussion with Council Member DeBlasio about his desire to place a “short >> leash” on our operation. >> >> >> >> On our governance page >> (http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/board-of-directors) we >> discuss our intention to create space on our board of directors for public >> participation, with our Resident Advisory Network a first step in that >> direction. It’s a different structure than the ICANN’s current stakeholder >> model, destined to be local and more hands on. >> >> >> >> With city TLD governance structures of this sort in place, we see > city-TLDs, >> each with a governance model reflective of the city it serves, providing a >> mechanism for broader public participation within ICANN’s structure. It’s > my >> expectation that, with their growing share of the world’s population, now >> 50% heading toward 70% in 2030, the Internet’s future governance form will >> reflect the participation of city-TLDs. And as we create participatory and >> effective governance structures for city-TLDs, they will garner standing > for >> a significant role in the Net’s governance. >> >> >> >> Where are we today? In June 2008 the developers of the Barcelona, Berlin, >> New York, and Paris TLDs met in Paris to discuss cooperation between >> city-TLDs and participation in Internet governance processes. Last week a >> coalition of cities presented ICANN with a Notice of Intent to create a >> constituency within the GNSO. This is an appropriate first step, and > within >> this newly developing sphere one begins to see an emergence of an engaged >> user community that will strongly influence governance of the Internet. >> >> >> >> There’s lots more work to be done here, and we would appreciate > and benefit >> from the thoughts of those on this list. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > > -- >                        >> Izumi Aizu << > >          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                  Japan >                                 * * * * * >           << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue Feb 24 15:16:36 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:16:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [Gov 636] Proposal IGF mechanism through DC References: <49A41AEF.7000509@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <97E0F8DB70834EB8AF44E6809BE7301F@PCbureau> Dear all Many thanks, Francis, for your commitment in the respect of the WSIS Tunis Agenda recommendations, especially those concerning IG and Development. As far as these issues are concerned, there already are relevant comments, analysises and proposals made available by some regional and sub-regional IGFs. This is particularly the case for Africa, who convened sub-regional fora such as the East African Internet Governance Forum (EAIGF), which issued very relevant findings and useful contributions upon IG and developing policies and DCs' participation in the global IGF process. This is to say that these valuable contributions from these fora should be taken in account as priority inputs when shaping the future of IGF. But also, that these fora should be strongly supported end encouraged by the global IGF bodies. Internet governance cannot be dealt with without really including the representatives of the relevant stakeholders of DCs far better than in the past, particularly the CS organizations. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ---- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Francis MUGUET To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:06 PM Subject: [Gov 636] Proposal IGF mechanism through DC Hello I have received a few requests to have the proposal I made this morning to be posted in writting. This is the written basis of my oral speech, a few words might have been skipped during my talk and conversely. Best Francis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Muguet IGF Open Consultations 24 February 2009 Geneva IGF PROCEDURE PROPOSAL I am the IGF focal point of the Linguistic Diversity Dynamic Coalition, and chair, co-chair, webmaster of various WSIS working groups that are still active to various extent. I am speaking in my personal capacity. I am going to be brutally honest in my assessment and then propose a pragmatic solution. While being supported by the majority of its participants, the IGF process is nevertheless in a difficult position, because its usefulness is criticized from two parties. From one side, there are stakeholders, that are more in favor of an intergovernmental process because they feel that there is a lack of output, in particular in terms of recommendations. On the other side, there are stakeholders who perceive the IGF as annoyance that could be avoided, and would be glad to revert to the old ways before the WSIS. Both sides, could, from outside the IGF process, at the CSTD level, the ECOSOC level, impose an external review. According to the Tunis Agenda : 76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. I agree with Markus Kummer that normally all review processes are performed by people that are not stakeholders directly involved in the activity under review. Even a 'internal review" means usually review by people in the same organization, with no outsiders, but not by the very people involved in the activity. Whatever the type of review, it is unavoidable that the extent to which each point of the mandate is going to be precisely assessed. It is clear also the review report is going to be the basis of the recommendations of the UN Secretary General is going to send, along with the review report, to the UN general assembly who is going to have the final say. Let us examine briefly the Tunis agenda and assess the progress that have been made. Concerning IGF organization : 78. The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all stakeholders and relevant parti 2. establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, not fulfilled, no bureau has been established, Concerning the IGF mandate 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue-called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: 5. Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. Not fulfilled. There is no advisory document in the name of IGF, or from the IGF, on this topic 7. Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. The point is not fulfilled at all. 9. Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Not fulfilled. There is no assessment document in the name of IGF on this topic . 12. Publish its proceedings OK, fulfilled partially, Are transcripts proceedings ? It might be supplemented by a scientific proceeding ( it is suggested a special issue of Future Internet (ISSN 1999-5903), a new open access journal where contributions are formatted in terms of papers.). Personally I see that the un-fulfillment of articles 5, 7 and 9 of the mandate is linked to the lack of establishment of a bureau. Since there is no bureau, no rules of procedures can be determined so that documents , statements, recommendations can be produced in the name of the IGF. It appeared to me, for a long time, as a stalemate without solution. . At the end of the Hyderabad meeting, I envisioned a way that could offer a pragmatic compromise with the help of the Dynamic Coalitions, a completely unexpected concept that arose during the IGF .and I am developing further this idea now Considering key article 7 : Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, It could be considered that the creation of Dynamic Coalition on some issues pertains to the task of identifying emerging issues. ( emerging : that emerge from the debate to differentiate from emergent issues, meaning new, novel topics ) . By facilitating the creation of Dynamic Coalitions recognized by the secretariat and listed on the IGF web site, the IGF has fulfill its mandate to Identify emerging issues.The dynamic coalitions are effectively bringing the issues to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public. So this works. and, where appropriate, make recommendations. following this line of reasoning, it is the dynamic coalitions that are making recommendations. The set of the DC recommendations is regrouped in one document entitled : Recommendation at the IGF. The at is put in bold instead of of to make it clear that it is the recommendations made by the IGF entities that have been recognized by the IGF as dealing with emerging issues. The Recommendation at the IGF does not have to be in agreement with one another, depending on each DC approach. In addition The MAG could held sessions dedicated to the agreement of DCs, and those sessions be called Bureau session, since in some sense, there are dealing with procedural issues that may lead to recommendation at the IGF. 5. Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing advisory documents for this topic. Similarly, the set of advices of each DC could be regrouped in a document called : Advices at the IGF concerning ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. and also 9. Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing promotion and assessment documents for this topic. Similarly, the set of documents of each DC be regrouped in one general document called : Assessement at the IGF concerning the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.. and in this way the IGF could be considered as having fulfilled its entire mandate. The IGF process has not lived up to the expectations of many, but also to the fears of many... Its role is crucial, and the IGF must be continued. Now considering the consultations process since the DC are playing a formal role in the IGF, the formal consultation with Forum participants could be conducted, possibly partially, through the dynamic coalitions. In this way, we have a legal and political coherence both for the implementation of the mandate and the consultation. ------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gov mailing list Gov at wsis-gov.org http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Feb 24 16:53:45 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:53:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 13:17:59 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Milton L Mueller writes >This is the third or fourth time I have heard that assertion made, but >no one that makes it has ever bothered to define and propose (in >writing) a structure that gives you lots of constituencies and 6 >Council seats without doing it the way we propose. As a new entrant to this debate, it seems to me that the obvious solution is one new constituency for "registries in waiting". -- 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 krischenowski at dotberlin.de Tue Feb 24 17:28:05 2009 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:28:05 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000001c996cf$2ae4e390$80aeaab0$@de> Dear Roland, as you may have seen, the cityTLDs already filed their application for a City TLD Constituency at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm It is expected that the .company TLDs will found a similar constituency, also the cultural TLDs and may be also some other sub-groups which do not think they fit into the gTLD Registry Constituency. Best Regards, Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 22:54 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 13:17:59 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Milton L Mueller writes >This is the third or fourth time I have heard that assertion made, but >no one that makes it has ever bothered to define and propose (in >writing) a structure that gives you lots of constituencies and 6 >Council seats without doing it the way we propose. As a new entrant to this debate, it seems to me that the obvious solution is one new constituency for "registries in waiting". -- 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 Wed Feb 25 01:30:33 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:30:33 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Cities and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <000001c996cf$2ae4e390$80aeaab0$@de> References: <20090223053604.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.2347dc7680.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496196D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1235404449.6406.40.camel@bower> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <000001c996cf$2ae4e390$80aeaab0$@de> Message-ID: In message <000001c996cf$2ae4e390$80aeaab0$@de>, at 23:28:05 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN writes >as you may have seen, the cityTLDs already filed their application for a >City TLD Constituency at >http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm > >It is expected that the .company TLDs will found a similar constituency, >also the cultural TLDs and may be also some other sub-groups which do not >think they fit into the gTLD Registry Constituency. Isn't it likely that filing for multiple new constituencies is going to cause problems? Why didn't all these people get together to form just one "applicant" constituency in the way I described? -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 25 08:18:57 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:18:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW In-Reply-To: <1234775123.6545.36.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1234775123.6545.36.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <5LNJk9RBVUpJFABN@perry.co.uk> In message <1234775123.6545.36.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 11:05:23 on Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >If the intention is to consult people who have an interest in IG issues >but who have not participated in the IGF then it makes sense. We need to >know why people such as the many involved in ccTLDs, for example, have >not been present in IGF spaces. I've seen lots of ccTLD people involved. >Perhaps the paragraph should simply make it clear that we are not >talking about 'minorities', 'women', etc. in general, but about groups >that are IG stakeholders, and that have an interest in IG issues, but >who have not, to date, participated. Are these stakeholders represented within the MAG (in which case perhaps the MAG can reach out to them for views)? I note from this week's meetings in Geneva that some think the answer is "no" for persons with disabilities. -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Feb 25 16:53:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:53:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Cable companies want a way to win with online TV Message-ID: Cable companies want a way to win with online TV The Associated Press [USA] By DEBORAH YAO – February 25, 2009 Art. Ref.: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxTy3ntI9tf65eGFh1b2DFTHWrwD96IJ1LG0 - PHILADELPHIA (AP) — HBO on your PC? It could happen sooner than you think. Wary of the growing number of consumers watching TV shows online for free — and yet reluctant to upset viewers by yanking shows from the Internet — the nation's largest cable operators are in talks with media conglomerates to take back control. They would create a platform to release cable TV shows online, but exclusively for paying subscribers. It's a delicate dance for those involved, which include Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., Cox Communications Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp., General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, News Corp., Viacom Inc. and Time Warner Inc. Cable networks considering the project include Time Warner's HBO, Viacom's MTV, Discovery Communications Inc., owners of Discovery channel, TLC, Animal Planet and others; Cablevision's Rainbow Media Holdings, the owner of AMC, IFC and Sundance; Turner Broadcasting, owner of CNN, TBS and TNT; as well as Scripps Networks, owner of Food Network and HGTV. Potentially at stake is the business model of cable TV operators. They pay networks a per-subscriber fee each month for the right to carry channels. But the cable companies have groused that they are paying for content that programmers are giving away for free on the Web. Jeff Gaspin, president of NBC's Universal Television Group, said the idea of collaborating with cable operators on online video has been floated for a while but talks began in earnest this year. "There's pressure on all of us," he said, referring to TV networks. "We get paid quite a bit of money from cable operators. ... It's important we find ways to do business that protects that business model." At the same time, "consumers want content where they want it and when they want it," Gaspin added. If the networks don't provide it, "they'll get it any way they can." Gaspin and others familiar with the project said the new service likely will be free to cable TV subscribers. But it's also possible a small fee might be assessed. Sam Schwartz, executive vice president of Comcast Interactive Media, said the company isn't looking at the effort as "some enormous new revenue opportunity" but wants to add value that will keep customers from leaving. Comcast calls its initiative "On Demand Online." One model being discussed is for Philadelphia-based Comcast to expand its lineup of cable shows on Fancast.com, its Web site that aggregates TV shows and movies for free viewing, much like Hulu.com. But only subscribers could access the shows. It's not yet clear how subscribers would be authenticated; it would be easier if the customer also buys high-speed Internet service from the cable company. The other cable operators wouldn't create a new Web site, but they would steer subscribers to the cable networks' Web sites, such as HBO.com, where they would be able to see an expanded array of shows. These plans could still change because negotiations are preliminary. Denise Denson, MTV Networks' executive vice president of content distribution and marketing, called the discussions "a new and necessary testing ground for the industry." Cable operators and the networks have to walk a fine line between preserving their business without standing in the way of the online video revolution. About 34 percent of adults who go online at home watch videos over the Internet at least every week, up from 25 percent two years ago, said a survey released Monday by Leichtman Research Group. People aren't yet cutting the cord en masse — the Leichtman survey found that people who watch recent TV shows online every week are not more likely to give up TV service than other people. But the industry is heading off what could end up as a troubling trend. After all, the availability of free content online has befuddled other media industries, from music to newspapers. Hulu, a joint venture between NBC and Fox that streams free TV shows and movies, already has felt pressure from content providers. It recently ended access to its shows from Boxee, a startup's free program that lets viewers watch online shows easily on their TV sets. Industry executives say Hulu is losing money, but Hulu declined to comment on its financial status. The cable companies and others involved in the talks for a TV service said their goal isn't to kill the online video goose, but to work out a plan that keeps everyone's business intact. "A TV-everywhere solution could give consumers more for their money while also helping to preserve the current business model that is generating and delivering popular branded shows viewers want," said Keith Cocozza, a spokesman for Time Warner Inc. --- -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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 19:08:14 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:08:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online Message-ID: Dear members of the list, I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R eportRPIGF-final.pdf. The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a good starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have any questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. Best regards Marília Maciel Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 21:13:56 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:13:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, can you send document on attached file because I can't download it from website. Kindly, Baudouin 2009/2/27 Marilia Maciel > Dear members of the list, > > > > I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This > group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. > > We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation > in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R > eportRPIGF-final.pdf. > > The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with > Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented > during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of > the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and > video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there > were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, > Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. > > > Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a good > starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have any > questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. > > Best regards > > Marília Maciel > > Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Fri Feb 27 05:24:22 2009 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe goujon) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:24:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] engage researcher philosophy and human sciences for 24 month full time namur belgique Message-ID: <49A7BF56.8030806@info.fundp.ac.be> Thanks to diffuse this message to people that might be interested *Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment, specialized in the philosophical, ethical and social evaluation of communication and information technologies **engages Under the direction of Prof. Philippe Goujon * ( http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html ) **_A researcher (24 months 100% - M/F) ** beginning of june 2009 * *Research project * Research lies within the scope of two European projects. Those projects investigate ethical governance in EU research projects with the goal of providing a framework for improved governance mechanisms that will address potential ethical issues arising from new and emerging technologies. Studying current governance arrangements in actual ICT projects (and in particular in Ambient Intelligence project) will help to produce a better understanding of the efficiency and limits of current ethics governance. This will be applied to the relevant ethical issues identified which will lead to a recommendation of successful governance arrangements that will address ethical issues in emerging ICTs before or as they arise. The recommendations for individual issues will be used to develop general policy recommendations. The researcher's work will include: Review of ICT ethics governance - Research on ICT ethics governance in current European projects - Evaluation of effectiveness of current governance arrangements - Application of suitable governance arrangements to most relevant issues identified - Evaluation of viability of suggested governance arrangements *Qualifications* _/* high level master(orPh.d. ) from philosophy or social sciences (with a good knowledge concerning ethics) with a strong interest in the problems involved in social integration, ethics and the governorship of new technologies. *Necessary qualities * · available, open-minded; · Scientific rigor and motivation for research; · Efficiency in the work and capacity to understand theoretical developments; · Ability to follow orders; · Excellent spoken and written English; · Perfect knowledge of power point; · Excellent spoken and written English. *Environment of research * - Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/) - Computer sciences department (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf ) - an international network of 15 European labs expert in the field * Procedure of recruitment * CV Interview (tel) Test CV and accompanying letter of motivation to be sent *before 1st may (but the sooner is better), 2009 _by post or fax_* to Professor Philippe Goujon rue Grandgagnage, 21 5000 - Namur ? Belgium E-mail : pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Phone (Cellular) : +32 497 03 50 12 Fax : +32 81 72 49 67 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pgo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 07:54:04 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:54:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will send the link to the report again, in case anyone else faces difficulties to open it. Otherwise, I can send it privately to anybody who is interested. http://www.igfremote.org/ReportRPIGF-final.pdf Thanks! Marília On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote: > Hi Marilia, > can you send document on attached file because I can't download it from > website. > > Kindly, > > Baudouin > > 2009/2/27 Marilia Maciel > >> Dear members of the list, >> >> >> >> I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This >> group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. >> >> We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation >> in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R >> eportRPIGF-final.pdf. >> >> The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with >> Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented >> during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of >> the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and >> video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there >> were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, >> Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. >> >> >> Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a good >> starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have any >> questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. >> >> Best regards >> >> Marília Maciel >> >> Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE > MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 > email:b.schombe at gmail.com > http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 07:56:32 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:56:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thank Marila, it's ok now Baudouin 2009/2/27, Marilia Maciel : > > I will send the link to the report again, in case anyone else faces > difficulties to open it. > Otherwise, I can send it privately to anybody who is interested. > > > http://www.igfremote.org/ReportRPIGF-final.pdf > > Thanks! > > Marília > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> can you send document on attached file because I can't download it from >> website. >> >> Kindly, >> >> Baudouin >> >> >> 2009/2/27 Marilia Maciel >> >>> Dear members of the list, >>> >>> >>> >>> I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This >>> group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. >>> >>> We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation >>> in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R >>> eportRPIGF-final.pdf. >>> >>> The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with >>> Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented >>> during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of >>> the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and >>> video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there >>> were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, >>> Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. >>> >>> >>> Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a >>> good starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have >>> any questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Marília Maciel >>> >>> Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC >> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE >> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE >> téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 >> email:b.schombe at gmail.com >> http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 08:36:39 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:36:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all. I think it should be benefit for all , if we can optimize multistakeholderism, to have option of multilinguism allowing some participants to contribute in those debates. We can make translation but I am afraid to make contresens translation and to have a bad understanding in the process. In all stape we share documents among our colleagues but they complain because those documents in only in english version. Baudouin 2009/2/27, Marilia Maciel : > > Dear members of the list, > > > > I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This > group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. > > We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation > in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R > eportRPIGF-final.pdf. > > The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with > Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented > during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of > the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and > video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there > were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, > Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. > > > Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a good > starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have any > questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. > > Best regards > > Marília Maciel > > Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 08:43:26 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:43:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation: report online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According IGF 2009, I suggest to give opportunity for african civil society to organize a regional workshop before IGF 2009 which will be in Egypt. So if the option is accepted , I will send a workshop proposal but in french version. Baudouin 2009/2/27, Marilia Maciel : > > Dear members of the list, > > > > I write to you on behalf of the Remote Participation Working Group. This > group aims to enhance remote attendance in the IGF. > > We are pleased to let you know that the report about remote participation > in the IGF Hyderabad is now available online: http://www.igfremote.org/R > eportRPIGF-final.pdf. > > The report has been written by the Working Group, in collaboration with > Dimdim. It details the experience of local IGF hubs, which was implemented > during the IGF 2008. The hubs are local meetings that exhibit the webcast of > the IGF. On the other hand, people present in the hubs can send text and > video questions that will be answered by the IGF panelists. Last year there > were 9 registered hubs. They took place in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, > Serbia, Pakistan, India, and three in Spain. > > > Any organization that wants to host a hub to the IGF 2009 will find a good > starting point on this report. Please, get in touch with us if you have any > questions. We would also appreciate to have your feedback. > > Best regards > > Marília Maciel > > Remote Participation Working Group (www.igfremote.org) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Feb 27 12:03:45 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:03:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] U.S. Supreme Court Rules For AT&T In Antitrust Case Message-ID: Supreme Court Rules For AT&T In Antitrust Case The lawsuit claimed AT&T was anti-competitive because it was charging high wholesale prices to ISPs while offering low-cost DSL to consumers. By Marin Perez, InformationWeek Feb. 26, 2009 Art Ref.: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214700018 - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an AT&T subsidiary in an antitrust lawsuit that accused the telecommunications company of trying to drive out competitors in the DSL market. In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected the lawsuit of Internet service providers led by Linkline Communications that claimed AT&T's Pacific Bell Telephone was being monopolistic by engaging in "price squeezing." The ISPs purchase high-speed Internet service from AT&T and resell it to customers, but the complaint said AT&T was offering retail DSL services to consumers at a low price to undercut its rivals. An antitrust lawsuit was first filed in California courts in 2003, under the claim that AT&T's pricing allowed it to preserve and maintain a monopoly over the DSL market. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, as did the 9th Circuit of Appeals in 2007. But the nation's top court disagreed, saying the plaintiffs were trying to bring a new form of antitrust liability. The Supreme Court drew from a 2004 ruling, Verizon v. Trinko, which stated that companies with no antitrust duties to their rivals were under no obligation to provide service to them. "If AT&T had simply stopped providing DSL transport service to the plaintiffs, it would not have run afoul of the Sherman Act," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "Under these circumstances, AT&T was not required to offer this service at the wholesale prices the plaintiffs would have preferred." The ruling will probably not put the issue to rest, as the other service providers will likely file another antitrust lawsuit in a lower court using different rationale. "If AT&T can bankrupt the plaintiffs by refusing to deal altogether, the plaintiffs must demonstrate why the law prevents AT&T from putting them out of business by pricing them out of the market," Roberts said. --- -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