From asif at kabani.co.uk  Thu Jan  1 03:48:30 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:48:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] Call for volunteers for Nomcom pool - 28 Current
 List - Closing January 6th
In-Reply-To: <004501c96b51$3a861ac0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <004501c96b51$3a861ac0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901010048k1e402eadm53e5852d1c61b758@mail.gmail.com>

Ginger ,

Thanks for the email, Include me as volunteer.

Asif Kabani

2008/12/31 Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net>:
> We have reached the necessary minimum of 25 volunteers for the Noncom pool.
> But as Avri has pointed out, more is still better, so please feel free to
> volunteer until January 6th.  We are also still looking for volunteers for
> the Appeals Noncom. All of the below volunteers and everyone else is invited
> to help with that very important task as well. Please let Jeremy Malcom know
> if you are willing to help with the Appeals Noncom.
>
>
>
> Please review the list to see if there are any errors.
>
>
>
> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>
> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>
> 3.  Philippe Dam
>
> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>
> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>
> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>
> 7.  Shaila Mistry
>
> 8.  Tricia Wang
>
> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>
> 10. Hempal Shrestha
>
> 11. Adam Peake
>
> 12. Ken Lohento
>
> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>
> 14. Renate Bloem
>
> 15. Jeremy Shtern
>
> 16. Schombe Baudoin
>
> 17. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>
> 18. Javier Pinzón
>
> 19. Tapani Tarvainen
>
> 20. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>
> 21. Katitza Rodriguez
>
> 22. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>
> 23. Norbert Klein
>
> 24. Rudi Vansnick
>
> 25. Omar Kaminski
>
> 26. Ray Plzak
>
> 27. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> 28. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)
>
>
>
> Thanks, and happy holidays,
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Fri Jan  2 12:02:47 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:02:47 -0800
Subject: [governance] Call for volunteers for Nomcom pool -  22 Current
In-Reply-To: <495A1A03.2060402@isoc.be>
References: <004a01c96a28$e3f8a890$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> <495A1A03.2060402@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <F916E42F-8F11-4508-A604-481804351931@internet.law.pro>

You can add me.

On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Happy holidays to all of you. Make 2009 an unforgettable year, the  
> year
> of the Internet individual user ...
>
> You may add my name to the list, so I hope we're 25 now...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw
> Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council
> Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN)
>
> /Dendermondesteenweg 143
> B-9070 Destelbergen
> Belgium
> GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/
> www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be>  - www.isoc.eu <http:// 
> www.isoc.eu>  -
> www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org>
>
>
>
> Ginger Paque schreef:
>>
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>>
>>
>> We are slowly closing in on our goal of at least 25 members for the
>> Noncom pool by January 6^th . Please consider collaborating with the
>> group by offering your name to the pool of candidates for the MAG
>> Nominating Committee.  This is an interesting and important
>> opportunity to help, and to share in the duties of the IGC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review the list to see if there are any errors.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>>
>> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>>
>> 3.  Philippe Dam
>>
>> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>>
>> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>>
>> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>>
>> 7.  Shaila Mistry__
>>
>> 8.  Tricia Wang
>>
>> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>>
>> 10. Hempal Shrestha__
>>
>> 11. Adam Peake
>>
>> 12. Ken Lohento
>>
>> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>>
>> 14. Renate Bloem
>>
>> 15. Jeremy Shtern
>>
>> 16. Schombe Baudoin
>>
>> 17. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>>
>> 18. Javier Pinzón
>>
>> 19. Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> 20. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>>
>> 21. Katitza Rodriguez
>>
>> 22. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, and happy holidays,
>>
>> Ginger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date:  
>> 29/12/2008 10:48
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jan  3 10:54:17 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat,  3 Jan 2009 07:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] .IN Registry Seeks Domain Name Dispute Arbitrators
Message-ID: <sympa.1230998015.86497.141@lists.cpsr.org>

.IN Registry Seeks Domain Name Dispute Arbitrators

National Internet Exchange of India, which operates the .IN country code top
level domain (ccTLD) Registry, is inviting proposals from interested
individuals who wish to apply as Arbitrators for .IN Registry, 

Applicants need to have proven expertise in this area as per the Eligibility
Criteria. The job arbitrator positions are for periods of three years. Here are
the Eligibility Criteria as per the arbitrator application document:

Each applicant, who wishes to be considered for inclusion on INDRP Panel
Listing, must demonstrate to INDRP Panel Selection Committee the following:

1. Should be a citizen of India, and resident of India.
2. Age on date of application should be minimum 25 years.
3. Should be an Income Tax payee.
4. Should not have been convicted by a court of Law for criminal and/ or civil
misdemeanor, which calls into question the applicant’s ability to act as a
panelist.
5. Should have a degree in Law from recognized Institution/University, and
should be recognized by the Bar Council of India. OR Should be a qualified
Chartered Accountant/ IT professional
6. Should have minimum 4 years of experience of arbitration, including
representation from the complainant/respondent, or as Arbitrator, with minimum
four cases of arbitration related to Domain Names (.IN or any other domain
names) 

To read the entire document download it from
http://nixi.in/images/detailed_advertisement_for_arbitrator.pdf or visit the In
Registry website.

--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Jan  4 16:37:39 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:07:39 -0430
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th -- Current 30
Message-ID: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

 

Happy, healthy, peaceful wishes for 2009.

 

There are still a few days if you would like to add your name to the MAG
Noncom Pool list. Although we have passed our minimum, statistically it is
better to have a larger pool, and there is a psychological advantage as
well, as more members become involved. Also, we also hope that after having
volunteered once, you will find it much easier to volunteer next time :-)
making the group more active and inclusive.

 

Thanks everybody!

Saludos, Ginger

 

 

1.  Jeanette Hofmann

2.  Maja Andjelkovic

3.  Philippe Dam

4.  Hanane Boujemi

5.  Raquel Gatto

6.  Rafik Dammak

7.  Shaila Mistry

8.  Tricia Wang

9.  Anja Kovacs

10. Hempal Shrestha

11. Adam Peake

12. Ken Lohento

13. Emmanuel Edet

14. Renate Bloem

15. Schombe Baudoin

16. Thomas Lowenhaupt

17. Javier Pinzón

18. Tapani Tarvainen

19. Tijani Ben Jemaa

20. Katitza Rodriguez

21. Jameleddine Khemakhem

22. Norbert Klein

23. Rudi Vansnick

24. Omar Kaminski

25. Ray Plzak

26. Siranush Vardanyan

27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)

28. Bret Fausett

29. Asif Kabani

30. Dave Kissoondoyal

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090104/2dd1ab60/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From asif at kabani.co.uk  Sun Jan  4 16:53:09 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 02:53:09 +0500
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th --
 Current 30
In-Reply-To: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901041353s22638d4bi5e7328ba4d79e758@mail.gmail.com>

Ginger thanks for the information


2009/1/5 Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net>:
>
>
> Happy, healthy, peaceful wishes for 2009.
>
>
>
> There are still a few days if you would like to add your name to the MAG
> Noncom Pool list. Although we have passed our minimum, statistically it is
> better to have a larger pool, and there is a psychological advantage as
> well, as more members become involved. Also, we also hope that after having
> volunteered once, you will find it much easier to volunteer next time J
> making the group more active and inclusive.
>
>
>
> Thanks everybody!
>
> Saludos, Ginger
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>
> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>
> 3.  Philippe Dam
>
> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>
> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>
> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>
> 7.  Shaila Mistry
>
> 8.  Tricia Wang
>
> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>
> 10. Hempal Shrestha
>
> 11. Adam Peake
>
> 12. Ken Lohento
>
> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>
> 14. Renate Bloem
>
> 15. Schombe Baudoin
>
> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
>
> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
>
> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>
> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
>
> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>
> 22. Norbert Klein
>
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
>
> 24. Omar Kaminski
>
> 25. Ray Plzak
>
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> 27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)
>
> 28. Bret Fausett
>
> 29. Asif Kabani
>
> 30. Dave Kissoondoyal
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jan  4 18:41:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:41:05 +1100
Subject: [governance] Drfat for Feedback - Briefing for MAG  Nomcom
Message-ID: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN>

Happy New Year Everyone!

 

Given our very tight time constraints, I am posting a draft briefing note
for this years MAG Nomcom, which will be selected in a couple of days. If
you have additional information or suggestions to guide the Nomcom, please
post here so that they can "hit the ground running"

 

Briefing Note for 2009 MAG Nomcom 

 

 

Dear Nomcom members,

 

Firstly, thank you for volunteering to participate and congratulations on
being selected for this year's Nomcom. I've prepared this briefing note to
give you background to your task, but essentially the process is up to you
from now on.

 

Please accept this as just one input for your work. Others might have
comments or suggestions as well, and no doubt as a group you will have
discussions in private that will extend what I have been able to include
here.

 

Your brief is to select a range of candidates who would ably represent the
Internet Governance Caucus on the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of
the Internet Governance Forum. Please note that your selections are one
input only - many other bodies will be recommending candidates. The slate of
nominations you propose will be considered by the UN along with other names
put forward by other organizations.

 

>From what I have read- and others might correct me here - the MAG will
continue to consists of about 40 members. Half of these members will be from
governments and that appears to be non-negotiable. The other half are a
mixture of civil society, private sector, and internet technical community
interests. Up to two thirds of current members are likely to continue on and
not be replaced. So, in terms of possible seats that could possibly be
filled by IGC nominees, we are looking at perhaps up to 8 vacancies from
rotation where our nominees would be considered along with others. We are
also looking at a similar number of seats where our current nominees and
representatives could have their case supported by being re-nominated by
IGC.

 

An additional factor you need to consider is that the Secretariat will
choose an overall MAG that has geographic and gender balance. So, for
instance, if a government rep of a particular gender and from a particular
region steps down, it could well be that to obtain balance a civil society
nominee with matching gender and regional attributes could be chosen.
Similarly, if one of the government groups nominates a government rep with
particular gender and regional attributes, a civil society nominee of the
same gender and from the same region may be overlooked. And this definitely
might include sub-regions - so you may want to cover both genders if
suitable candidates are available from sub regions including North and South
Asia, Oceania, Arab States etc. Unfortunately we have no knowledge of who is
being rotated out, who is resigning, and who other groups are nominating.

 

Within that context it is up to you to choose as many names as you think
might be put forward as suitable representatives to cover all likely
eventualities. There is no fixed number. 

 

Let me draw your attention to a few documents of relevance, but firstly,

 

Timing is critical. The Secretariat has asked for our nominations by
February 15, and I believe we are at a distinct disadvantage if our
nominations are not completed before the February 23/24 consultations. So I
believe the deadline of February 15 must be adhered to.

 

A few key documents and references

 

The IGF call for proposals is at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/home. Further reference on the
MAG's rotation considerations are at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf

 

Information on the Nomcom process is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2.
Please note that, as discussed on this list in December and generally agreed
to, the process may need to be speeded up to allow for the call for
nominations and the selection process to be completed within the allotted
time.

 

The report of last years MAG Nomcom is at
http://www.igcaucus.org/old/Nomcom2008-report_2.pdf . There are some lessons
to be learnt from problems last year which I believe should be taken on
board. One particular issue is to be sure that the call for candidates
includes a statement that candidate nomination details will be published -
without this, it is inappropriate to publish candidate details.

 

TIMING

 

Unfortunately there is little choice but to meet the deadlines imposed on
us. This will mean that the Nomcom will have to proceed as best possible
within the allotted timeframe. 

 

I would suggest that a timetable similar to the following needs to be
adopted

 

Call for nominations - on or around January 12. Close of Nominations - no
later than January 24. That allows a minimal three weeks for evaluation and
selection. 

 

This sort of timetable means that the Nomcom will have to impose tight
deadlines for feedback from Nomcom members. Past experience suggests that
some Nomcom members will be far more active than others - and that some
Nomcom members may not meet feedback deadlines for the work to be completed,
irrespective of the time allotted. It is up to the Nomcom chair to ensure
that every attempt is made to consult every member at all stages, but to
proceed to complete the work so as not to disadvantage IGC nominations in
the overall IGF selection process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/501f27de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  4 18:44:42 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:44:42 +1100
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
Message-ID: <3AE3E15F8D6746E88414AED91FA03919@IAN>

Given our tight timetable for MAG nominations, I am suggesting the following
as a draft for the incoming Nomcom to consider as a call for proposals. It
includes broad considerations for nominations. It largely follows last years
draft. So as to give the Nomcom feedback on this, please post any comments
for their consideration. I expect that a call for proposals will be issued
by the Nomcom chair shortly after the Nomcom is announced.

 

Draft follows

 

Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing

IGC recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not

be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and

broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as

adopted by the caucus at different times.

 

. In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to

be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her

candidature.

. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention

with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person

in the IG and information society arena. The person should be informed that
these details submitted may be published even if the nomination is
unsuccessful.

. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person

will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG.

. Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they
carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and
pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions.

Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS

constituencies, may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the

MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies,

including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies

and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as

well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.

 

Nominations must be sent to ******* no later than midnight (date)**** UTC~

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/173bb334/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 07:11:08 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:11:08 +0500
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <3AE3E15F8D6746E88414AED91FA03919@IAN>
References: <3AE3E15F8D6746E88414AED91FA03919@IAN>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901050411m606c9a70hf2b555b9ebc39b7d@mail.gmail.com>

what will follow in the asterisks? -  Nominations must be sent to
******* no later than midnight (date)**** UTC~

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Given our tight timetable for MAG nominations, I am suggesting the following
> as a draft for the incoming Nomcom to consider as a call for proposals. It
> includes broad considerations for nominations. It largely follows last years
> draft. So as to give the Nomcom feedback on this, please post any comments
> for their consideration. I expect that a call for proposals will be issued
> by the Nomcom chair shortly after the Nomcom is announced.
>
>
>
> Draft follows
>
>
>
> Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – for choosing
>
> IGC recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not
>
> be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and
>
> broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as
>
> adopted by the caucus at different times.
>
>
>
> • In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to
>
> be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her
>
> candidature.
>
> • Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention
>
> with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person
>
> in the IG and information society arena. The person should be informed that
> these details submitted may be published even if the nomination is
> unsuccessful.
>
> • Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person
>
> will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG.
>
> • Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they
> carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and
> pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions.
>
> Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS
>
> constituencies, may also be mentioned.
>
> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
>
> MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies,
>
> including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies
>
> and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as
>
> well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.
>
>
>
> Nominations must be sent to ******* no later than midnight (date)**** UTC~
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Jan  5 11:28:23 2009
From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:28:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th --
 Current 30
In-Reply-To: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F37376DD9@mfp01.IFLA.lan>

Please add my name too.

 

Stuart

 

 

Stuart Hamilton

Senior Policy Advisor

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

P.O. Box 95312
2509 CH The Hague

Netherlands

 

00 31 70 314 0884

 

 

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th -- Current 30

 

 

Happy, healthy, peaceful wishes for 2009.

 

There are still a few days if you would like to add your name to the MAG Noncom Pool list. Although we have passed our minimum, statistically it is better to have a larger pool, and there is a psychological advantage as well, as more members become involved. Also, we also hope that after having volunteered once, you will find it much easier to volunteer next time J making the group more active and inclusive.

 

Thanks everybody!

Saludos, Ginger

 

 

1.  Jeanette Hofmann

2.  Maja Andjelkovic

3.  Philippe Dam

4.  Hanane Boujemi

5.  Raquel Gatto

6.  Rafik Dammak

7.  Shaila Mistry

8.  Tricia Wang

9.  Anja Kovacs

10. Hempal Shrestha

11. Adam Peake

12. Ken Lohento

13. Emmanuel Edet

14. Renate Bloem

15. Schombe Baudoin

16. Thomas Lowenhaupt

17. Javier Pinzón

18. Tapani Tarvainen

19. Tijani Ben Jemaa

20. Katitza Rodriguez

21. Jameleddine Khemakhem

22. Norbert Klein

23. Rudi Vansnick

24. Omar Kaminski

25. Ray Plzak

26. Siranush Vardanyan

27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)

28. Bret Fausett

29. Asif Kabani

30. Dave Kissoondoyal

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/e9f74f39/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu  Mon Jan  5 13:18:04 2009
From: jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hunker)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:18:04 -0500
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th --
 Current 30
In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F37376DD9@mfp01.IFLA.lan>
References: <002e01c96eb4$ac465970$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F37376DD9@mfp01.IFLA.lan>
Message-ID: <000301c96f61$f447d930$dcd78b90$@cmu.edu>

Please add my name as well.

 

Best regards,

 

Jeffrey Hunker

 

Distinguished Service Professor of Technology and Public Policy
Heinz School of Public Policy and Management

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  15213


412 268 4897
202 257 7778 (cell)
jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu
hunker at jeffreyhunker.com  

 

 

 

From: Stuart Hamilton [mailto:Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:28 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Subject: RE: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th -- Current
30

 

Please add my name too.

 

Stuart

 

 

Stuart Hamilton

Senior Policy Advisor

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

P.O. Box 95312
2509 CH The Hague

Netherlands

 

00 31 70 314 0884

 

 

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes January 6th -- Current 30

 

 

Happy, healthy, peaceful wishes for 2009.

 

There are still a few days if you would like to add your name to the MAG
Noncom Pool list. Although we have passed our minimum, statistically it is
better to have a larger pool, and there is a psychological advantage as
well, as more members become involved. Also, we also hope that after having
volunteered once, you will find it much easier to volunteer next time J
making the group more active and inclusive.

 

Thanks everybody!

Saludos, Ginger

 

 

1.  Jeanette Hofmann

2.  Maja Andjelkovic

3.  Philippe Dam

4.  Hanane Boujemi

5.  Raquel Gatto

6.  Rafik Dammak

7.  Shaila Mistry

8.  Tricia Wang

9.  Anja Kovacs

10. Hempal Shrestha

11. Adam Peake

12. Ken Lohento

13. Emmanuel Edet

14. Renate Bloem

15. Schombe Baudoin

16. Thomas Lowenhaupt

17. Javier Pinzón

18. Tapani Tarvainen

19. Tijani Ben Jemaa

20. Katitza Rodriguez

21. Jameleddine Khemakhem

22. Norbert Klein

23. Rudi Vansnick

24. Omar Kaminski

25. Ray Plzak

26. Siranush Vardanyan

27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)

28. Bret Fausett

29. Asif Kabani

30. Dave Kissoondoyal

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/f75adfc8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 14:39:30 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:09:30 -0430
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback - Briefing for MAG  Nomcom:
 Questions about MAG members
In-Reply-To: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN>
References: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN>
Message-ID: <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Hello everyone,

 

I find Ian's posts to be very helpful, and se that we need to be concrete
and complete if we are to make our deadlines. I wonder if anyone can answer
these two additional questions for me:

 

Do nominees for the MAG need to take any time commitment into consideration?
How much time must be dedicated to MAG activities?

 

Will MAG members be required to travel to meetings? If so, is funding
available, or will they need to find their own funding?

 

Thanks, Ginger

 

 

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Domingo, 04 de Enero de 2009 07:11 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] Drfat for Feedback - Briefing for MAG Nomcom

 

Happy New Year Everyone!

 

Given our very tight time constraints, I am posting a draft briefing note
for this years MAG Nomcom, which will be selected in a couple of days. If
you have additional information or suggestions to guide the Nomcom, please
post here so that they can "hit the ground running"

 

Briefing Note for 2009 MAG Nomcom 

 

 

Dear Nomcom members,

 

Firstly, thank you for volunteering to participate and congratulations on
being selected for this year's Nomcom. I've prepared this briefing note to
give you background to your task, but essentially the process is up to you
from now on.

 

Please accept this as just one input for your work. Others might have
comments or suggestions as well, and no doubt as a group you will have
discussions in private that will extend what I have been able to include
here.

 

Your brief is to select a range of candidates who would ably represent the
Internet Governance Caucus on the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of
the Internet Governance Forum. Please note that your selections are one
input only - many other bodies will be recommending candidates. The slate of
nominations you propose will be considered by the UN along with other names
put forward by other organizations.

 

>From what I have read- and others might correct me here - the MAG will
continue to consists of about 40 members. Half of these members will be from
governments and that appears to be non-negotiable. The other half are a
mixture of civil society, private sector, and internet technical community
interests. Up to two thirds of current members are likely to continue on and
not be replaced. So, in terms of possible seats that could possibly be
filled by IGC nominees, we are looking at perhaps up to 8 vacancies from
rotation where our nominees would be considered along with others. We are
also looking at a similar number of seats where our current nominees and
representatives could have their case supported by being re-nominated by
IGC.

 

An additional factor you need to consider is that the Secretariat will
choose an overall MAG that has geographic and gender balance. So, for
instance, if a government rep of a particular gender and from a particular
region steps down, it could well be that to obtain balance a civil society
nominee with matching gender and regional attributes could be chosen.
Similarly, if one of the government groups nominates a government rep with
particular gender and regional attributes, a civil society nominee of the
same gender and from the same region may be overlooked. And this definitely
might include sub-regions - so you may want to cover both genders if
suitable candidates are available from sub regions including North and South
Asia, Oceania, Arab States etc. Unfortunately we have no knowledge of who is
being rotated out, who is resigning, and who other groups are nominating.

 

Within that context it is up to you to choose as many names as you think
might be put forward as suitable representatives to cover all likely
eventualities. There is no fixed number. 

 

Let me draw your attention to a few documents of relevance, but firstly,

 

Timing is critical. The Secretariat has asked for our nominations by
February 15, and I believe we are at a distinct disadvantage if our
nominations are not completed before the February 23/24 consultations. So I
believe the deadline of February 15 must be adhered to.

 

A few key documents and references

 

The IGF call for proposals is at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/home. Further reference on the
MAG's rotation considerations are at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf

 

Information on the Nomcom process is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2.
Please note that, as discussed on this list in December and generally agreed
to, the process may need to be speeded up to allow for the call for
nominations and the selection process to be completed within the allotted
time.

 

The report of last years MAG Nomcom is at
http://www.igcaucus.org/old/Nomcom2008-report_2.pdf . There are some lessons
to be learnt from problems last year which I believe should be taken on
board. One particular issue is to be sure that the call for candidates
includes a statement that candidate nomination details will be published -
without this, it is inappropriate to publish candidate details.

 

TIMING

 

Unfortunately there is little choice but to meet the deadlines imposed on
us. This will mean that the Nomcom will have to proceed as best possible
within the allotted timeframe. 

 

I would suggest that a timetable similar to the following needs to be
adopted

 

Call for nominations - on or around January 12. Close of Nominations - no
later than January 24. That allows a minimal three weeks for evaluation and
selection. 

 

This sort of timetable means that the Nomcom will have to impose tight
deadlines for feedback from Nomcom members. Past experience suggests that
some Nomcom members will be far more active than others - and that some
Nomcom members may not meet feedback deadlines for the work to be completed,
irrespective of the time allotted. It is up to the Nomcom chair to ensure
that every attempt is made to consult every member at all stages, but to
proceed to complete the work so as not to disadvantage IGC nominations in
the overall IGF selection process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/aec7f56b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From avri at acm.org  Mon Jan  5 14:58:33 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:58:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback - Briefing for MAG  Nomcom:
 Questions about MAG members
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN> <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <41D621D0-E69B-4E89-9F92-BF3515FC3E40@acm.org>


On 5 Jan 2009, at 14:39, Ginger Paque wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I find Ian’s posts to be very helpful, and se that we need to be  
> concrete and complete if we are to make our deadlines. I wonder if  
> anyone can answer these two additional questions for me

i can add something to the second question.

> :
>
> Do nominees for the MAG need to take any time commitment into  
> consideration? How much time must be dedicated to MAG activities?
>
> Will MAG members be required to travel to meetings? If so, is  
> funding available, or will they need to find their own funding?
>

Yes, MAG members are expected to travel to meetings.  Though there is  
some provision made for remote particpation - alwasy being remote  
makes it difficult to be part of the process.

There has been, and hopefully will be again, some funding for those  
from nations defined as less developed, but those from the Global  
North are largely self funded unless they have employers, grants or  
other means.

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jan  5 15:20:09 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:20:09 +1100
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70901050411m606c9a70hf2b555b9ebc39b7d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F1D94D56CDBF4407964FAF0F2F3CABEC@IAN>

Just the email address and date details for nominations, Fouad - they will
be determined by Nomcom committee

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> Sent: 05 January 2009 23:11
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
> 
> what will follow in the asterisks? -  Nominations must be sent to
> ******* no later than midnight (date)**** UTC~
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> > Given our tight timetable for MAG nominations, I am suggesting the
> following
> > as a draft for the incoming Nomcom to consider as a call for proposals.
> It
> > includes broad considerations for nominations. It largely follows last
> years
> > draft. So as to give the Nomcom feedback on this, please post any
> comments
> > for their consideration. I expect that a call for proposals will be
> issued
> > by the Nomcom chair shortly after the Nomcom is announced.
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft follows
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing
> >
> > IGC recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not
> >
> > be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and
> >
> > broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as
> >
> > adopted by the caucus at different times.
> >
> >
> >
> > . In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to
> >
> > be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her
> >
> > candidature.
> >
> > . Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention
> >
> > with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person
> >
> > in the IG and information society arena. The person should be informed
> that
> > these details submitted may be published even if the nomination is
> > unsuccessful.
> >
> > . Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person
> >
> > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG.
> >
> > . Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they
> > carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating
> and
> > pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions.
> >
> > Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS
> >
> > constituencies, may also be mentioned.
> >
> > Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
> >
> > MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies,
> >
> > including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies
> >
> > and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as
> >
> > well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nominations must be sent to ******* no later than midnight (date)****
> UTC~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Jan  5 15:39:56 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:39:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback - Briefing for MAG  Nomcom:
 Questions
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN> <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <4962701C.4080407@wzb.eu>

Hi Ginger, I can contribute something to the first question about time 
commitments.

The amount of effort and time is a matter of personal commitment and 
therefore varies considerably among MAG members. Some contribute a lot, 
others rather little.

Over the last year, the MAG has assumed more responsibility in the 
preparation of the program. This concerns, for example, the evaluation 
of workshop proposals, the merging of workshop proposals or the search 
for panelists. Several MAG members have also moderated or participated 
in groups involved in the organization of main sessions or open dialogue 
sessions. Such activities require quite a bit of attention and time.

It goes without saying that the more time civil society members spend on 
such tasks and the more expertise we contribute, the stronger our impact 
is likely to be.

jeanette

Ginger Paque wrote:
> *Hello everyone,*
> 
> * *
> 
> *I find Ian’s posts to be very helpful, and se that we need to be 
> concrete and complete if we are to make our deadlines. I wonder if 
> anyone can answer these two additional questions for me:*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Do nominees for the MAG need to take any time commitment into 
> consideration? How much time must be dedicated to MAG activities?*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Will MAG members be required to travel to meetings? If so, is funding 
> available, or will they need to find their own funding?*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Thanks, Ginger*
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *De:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> *Enviado el:* Domingo, 04 de Enero de 2009 07:11 p.m.
> *Para:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Asunto:* [governance] Drfat for Feedback - Briefing for MAG Nomcom
> 
>  
> 
> Happy New Year Everyone!
> 
>  
> 
> Given our very tight time constraints, I am posting a draft briefing 
> note for this years MAG Nomcom, which will be selected in a couple of 
> days. If you have additional information or suggestions to guide the 
> Nomcom, please post here so that they can “hit the ground running”
> 
>  
> 
> Briefing Note for 2009 MAG Nomcom
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Nomcom members,
> 
>  
> 
> Firstly, thank you for volunteering to participate and congratulations 
> on being selected for this year’s Nomcom. I’ve prepared this briefing 
> note to give you background to your task, but essentially the process is 
> up to you from now on.
> 
>  
> 
> Please accept this as just one input for your work. Others might have 
> comments or suggestions as well, and no doubt as a group you will have 
> discussions in private that will extend what I have been able to include 
> here.
> 
>  
> 
> Your brief is to select a range of candidates who would ably represent 
> the Internet Governance Caucus on the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group 
> (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum. Please note that your selections 
> are one input only – many other bodies will be recommending candidates. 
> The slate of nominations you propose will be considered by the UN along 
> with other names put forward by other organizations.
> 
>  
> 
>  From what I have read- and others might correct me here – the MAG will 
> continue to consists of about 40 members. Half of these members will be 
> from governments and that appears to be non-negotiable. The other half 
> are a mixture of civil society, private sector, and internet technical 
> community interests. Up to two thirds of current members are likely to 
> continue on and not be replaced. So, in terms of possible seats that 
> could possibly be filled by IGC nominees, we are looking at perhaps up 
> to 8 vacancies from rotation where our nominees would be considered 
> along with others. We are also looking at a similar number of seats 
> where our current nominees and representatives could have their case 
> supported by being re-nominated by IGC.
> 
>  
> 
> An additional factor you need to consider is that the Secretariat will 
> choose an overall MAG that has geographic and gender balance. So, for 
> instance, if a government rep of a particular gender and from a 
> particular region steps down, it could well be that to obtain balance a 
> civil society nominee with matching gender and regional attributes could 
> be chosen. Similarly, if one of the government groups nominates a 
> government rep with particular gender and regional attributes, a civil 
> society nominee of the same gender and from the same region may be 
> overlooked. And this definitely might include sub-regions – so you may 
> want to cover both genders if suitable candidates are available from sub 
> regions including North and South Asia, Oceania, Arab States etc. 
> Unfortunately we have no knowledge of who is being rotated out, who is 
> resigning, and who other groups are nominating.
> 
>  
> 
> Within that context it is up to you to choose as many names as you think 
> might be put forward as suitable representatives to cover all likely 
> eventualities. There is no fixed number.
> 
>  
> 
> Let me draw your attention to a few documents of relevance, but firstly,
> 
>  
> 
> Timing is critical. The Secretariat has asked for our nominations by 
> February 15, and I believe we are at a distinct disadvantage if our 
> nominations are not completed before the February 23/24 consultations. 
> So I believe the deadline of February 15 must be adhered to.
> 
>  
> 
> A few key documents and references
> 
>  
> 
> The IGF call for proposals is at 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/home. Further reference on the 
> MAG’s rotation considerations are at 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Information on the Nomcom process is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2. 
> Please note that, as discussed on this list in December and generally 
> agreed to, the process may need to be speeded up to allow for the call 
> for nominations and the selection process to be completed within the 
> allotted time.
> 
>  
> 
> The report of last years MAG Nomcom is at 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/old/Nomcom2008-report_2.pdf . There are some 
> lessons to be learnt from problems last year which I believe should be 
> taken on board. One particular issue is to be sure that the call for 
> candidates includes a statement that candidate nomination details will 
> be published – without this, it is inappropriate to publish candidate 
> details.
> 
>  
> 
> TIMING
> 
>  
> 
> Unfortunately there is little choice but to meet the deadlines imposed 
> on us. This will mean that the Nomcom will have to proceed as best 
> possible within the allotted timeframe.
> 
>  
> 
> I would suggest that a timetable similar to the following needs to be 
> adopted
> 
>  
> 
> Call for nominations – on or around January 12. Close of Nominations – 
> no later than January 24. That allows a minimal three weeks for 
> evaluation and selection.
> 
>  
> 
> This sort of timetable means that the Nomcom will have to impose tight 
> deadlines for feedback from Nomcom members. Past experience suggests 
> that some Nomcom members will be far more active than others – and that 
> some Nomcom members may not meet feedback deadlines for the work to be 
> completed, irrespective of the time allotted. It is up to the Nomcom 
> chair to ensure that every attempt is made to consult every member at 
> all stages, but to proceed to complete the work so as not to 
> disadvantage IGC nominations in the overall IGF selection process.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jan  5 16:00:47 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:00:47 +1100
Subject: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF
Message-ID: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN>

One of the major topics for the February 23-24 consultations in Geneva is
the Review of IGF, and if possible we should make a statement on this.

Below is our earlier statement on this subject which we should review and
improve if possible. I think we should bear in mind that the consultation
will be more interested in the process of the review - our earlier statement
addressed both the process and what we believe should be the outcome. I
think we should concentrate now on how the review should proceed rather than
what its findings should be.

Any comments on the text below? We should try to arrive at a common position
if possible by mid February.

 

Our earlier statement - 

The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is
regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another
consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of
the IGF.

Process of review

As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered
on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should
be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal
processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond
IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for
different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings.

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil
society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women,
ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached
out to.

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of
review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to
rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such
a politically sensitive and important assessment.

The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global
public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political
significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy
institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one
such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global
institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives,
and partnerships are a good way to ensure it.

It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest,
preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a
workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one
with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should
feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'.

 

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure

 

On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond
its first mandated period of five years.

It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in
the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the
IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.

Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy
making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and
democratic.

The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at
the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note
that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF
should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal
relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental
domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global
civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its
assistance to the IGF in this regard.

A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to
some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional
work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be
useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also
incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this
direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby
WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main
sessions.

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have
stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of
special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such
funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of
the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional
activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the
IGF across geographies and social groups.

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few
years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where
different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different
orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF
secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is
very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that
they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this
unique global institution.

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/d37c397c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 16:09:25 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:09:25 +1100
Subject: [governance] Input to Feb 23/24 consultations on IGF program
Message-ID: <0A7418476F2B40898FCDB88BF0D0CFC3@IAN>

The other major topic for the February consultations is Taking stock of the
Hyderabad Meeting and suggest improvements for the 2009 Meeting to be held
in Sharm El Sheikh. Should we be making a statement as a group?

 

We have had a discussion here on program themes during December - would
anyone like to synthesise those comments here? We do have rights as a theme
to refine as an input - what else is there that we might want to say as a
group on this general topic?

 

Personal comments can also be made via the www.intgovforum.org
<http://www.intgovforum.org/>  website. Here we should concentrate on common
themes we can support as civil society.

 

 

 

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/6510f77b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 16:12:32 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:42:32 -0430
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback - Briefing for MAG  Nomcom:
 Questions
In-Reply-To: <4962701C.4080407@wzb.eu>
References: <72ECA88774F243BF8341CFBB547F7C07@IAN> <00ab01c96f6d$5752c390$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> <4962701C.4080407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <00b901c96f7a$597a99b0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Thanks Jeanette and Avri for this information.

I think that IGC recommendations for MAG nominees should take the time and
commitment factor very much into account. We should consider whether the
candidates we recommend will invest the time and energy to give the CS
issues the impetus they need to stay at the forefront of the MAG and IGF
work. I suggest that nominees address this point in their brief statements.

Saludos, Ginger

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Enero de 2009 04:10 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
CC: 'Ian Peter'
Asunto: Re: [governance] Draft for Feedback - Briefing for MAG Nomcom:
Questions

Hi Ginger, I can contribute something to the first question about time 
commitments.

The amount of effort and time is a matter of personal commitment and 
therefore varies considerably among MAG members. Some contribute a lot, 
others rather little.

Over the last year, the MAG has assumed more responsibility in the 
preparation of the program. This concerns, for example, the evaluation 
of workshop proposals, the merging of workshop proposals or the search 
for panelists. Several MAG members have also moderated or participated 
in groups involved in the organization of main sessions or open dialogue 
sessions. Such activities require quite a bit of attention and time.

It goes without saying that the more time civil society members spend on 
such tasks and the more expertise we contribute, the stronger our impact 
is likely to be.

jeanette

Ginger Paque wrote:
> *Hello everyone,*
> 
> * *
> 
> *I find Ian's posts to be very helpful, and se that we need to be 
> concrete and complete if we are to make our deadlines. I wonder if 
> anyone can answer these two additional questions for me:*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Do nominees for the MAG need to take any time commitment into 
> consideration? How much time must be dedicated to MAG activities?*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Will MAG members be required to travel to meetings? If so, is funding 
> available, or will they need to find their own funding?*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Thanks, Ginger*
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *De:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> *Enviado el:* Domingo, 04 de Enero de 2009 07:11 p.m.
> *Para:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Asunto:* [governance] Drfat for Feedback - Briefing for MAG Nomcom
> 
>  
> 
> Happy New Year Everyone!
> 
>  
> 
> Given our very tight time constraints, I am posting a draft briefing 
> note for this years MAG Nomcom, which will be selected in a couple of 
> days. If you have additional information or suggestions to guide the 
> Nomcom, please post here so that they can "hit the ground running"
> 
>  
> 
> Briefing Note for 2009 MAG Nomcom
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Nomcom members,
> 
>  
> 
> Firstly, thank you for volunteering to participate and congratulations 
> on being selected for this year's Nomcom. I've prepared this briefing 
> note to give you background to your task, but essentially the process is 
> up to you from now on.
> 
>  
> 
> Please accept this as just one input for your work. Others might have 
> comments or suggestions as well, and no doubt as a group you will have 
> discussions in private that will extend what I have been able to include 
> here.
> 
>  
> 
> Your brief is to select a range of candidates who would ably represent 
> the Internet Governance Caucus on the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group 
> (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum. Please note that your selections 
> are one input only - many other bodies will be recommending candidates. 
> The slate of nominations you propose will be considered by the UN along 
> with other names put forward by other organizations.
> 
>  
> 
>  From what I have read- and others might correct me here - the MAG will 
> continue to consists of about 40 members. Half of these members will be 
> from governments and that appears to be non-negotiable. The other half 
> are a mixture of civil society, private sector, and internet technical 
> community interests. Up to two thirds of current members are likely to 
> continue on and not be replaced. So, in terms of possible seats that 
> could possibly be filled by IGC nominees, we are looking at perhaps up 
> to 8 vacancies from rotation where our nominees would be considered 
> along with others. We are also looking at a similar number of seats 
> where our current nominees and representatives could have their case 
> supported by being re-nominated by IGC.
> 
>  
> 
> An additional factor you need to consider is that the Secretariat will 
> choose an overall MAG that has geographic and gender balance. So, for 
> instance, if a government rep of a particular gender and from a 
> particular region steps down, it could well be that to obtain balance a 
> civil society nominee with matching gender and regional attributes could 
> be chosen. Similarly, if one of the government groups nominates a 
> government rep with particular gender and regional attributes, a civil 
> society nominee of the same gender and from the same region may be 
> overlooked. And this definitely might include sub-regions - so you may 
> want to cover both genders if suitable candidates are available from sub 
> regions including North and South Asia, Oceania, Arab States etc. 
> Unfortunately we have no knowledge of who is being rotated out, who is 
> resigning, and who other groups are nominating.
> 
>  
> 
> Within that context it is up to you to choose as many names as you think 
> might be put forward as suitable representatives to cover all likely 
> eventualities. There is no fixed number.
> 
>  
> 
> Let me draw your attention to a few documents of relevance, but firstly,
> 
>  
> 
> Timing is critical. The Secretariat has asked for our nominations by 
> February 15, and I believe we are at a distinct disadvantage if our 
> nominations are not completed before the February 23/24 consultations. 
> So I believe the deadline of February 15 must be adhered to.
> 
>  
> 
> A few key documents and references
> 
>  
> 
> The IGF call for proposals is at 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/home. Further reference on the 
> MAG's rotation considerations are at 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Information on the Nomcom process is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2. 
> Please note that, as discussed on this list in December and generally 
> agreed to, the process may need to be speeded up to allow for the call 
> for nominations and the selection process to be completed within the 
> allotted time.
> 
>  
> 
> The report of last years MAG Nomcom is at 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/old/Nomcom2008-report_2.pdf . There are some 
> lessons to be learnt from problems last year which I believe should be 
> taken on board. One particular issue is to be sure that the call for 
> candidates includes a statement that candidate nomination details will 
> be published - without this, it is inappropriate to publish candidate 
> details.
> 
>  
> 
> TIMING
> 
>  
> 
> Unfortunately there is little choice but to meet the deadlines imposed 
> on us. This will mean that the Nomcom will have to proceed as best 
> possible within the allotted timeframe.
> 
>  
> 
> I would suggest that a timetable similar to the following needs to be 
> adopted
> 
>  
> 
> Call for nominations - on or around January 12. Close of Nominations - 
> no later than January 24. That allows a minimal three weeks for 
> evaluation and selection.
> 
>  
> 
> This sort of timetable means that the Nomcom will have to impose tight 
> deadlines for feedback from Nomcom members. Past experience suggests 
> that some Nomcom members will be far more active than others - and that 
> some Nomcom members may not meet feedback deadlines for the work to be 
> completed, irrespective of the time allotted. It is up to the Nomcom 
> chair to ensure that every attempt is made to consult every member at 
> all stages, but to proceed to complete the work so as not to 
> disadvantage IGC nominations in the overall IGF selection process.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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 ginger at paque.net  Mon Jan  5 16:31:02 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:01:02 -0430
Subject: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF: Remote
 Participation
In-Reply-To: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN>
References: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN>
Message-ID: <00ba01c96f7c$f07929b0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Note, I propose the following idea as a member of the IGC, not as
co-coordinator:

 

I think this is a pivotal moment for the IGF and that the IGC should make a
short, concise statement, perhaps based on the previous one, with the
intention of supporting the process and defending it from detractors in the
best possible way: pointing out its success so far, and proposing concrete,
substantial change for progress on issues and on the process itself.

 

Since this is a moment to suggest substantial changes for the improvement of
the process, I ask that the IGC discuss the possibility to suggest a strong
commitment to strengthening the remote participation facet of the IGF, based
on the increasing foundation established by the IGF Secretariat in each of
the three IGFs so far.  While far from perfect, the RP in Hyderabad was
impressive, and sets a precedent for multistakeholderism and inclusion of
regional contributions to the IGF and other processes. In addition, RP has
the significant stimulus of discussion of IGF and local and regional
projects that do not depend on the central IGF process alone. This can
catalyze an increase in the speed of effects of productive IG at the
regional, local and grassroots levels which is otherwise much slower to take
place, under the umbrella and guidance of the IGF principles.

 

This change in priority for the IGF should go hand in hand with the
promotion of Remote Participation as a principal emerging issue for the
constructive application of IGF and HR issues in an organized way.

 

The RP Working Group is writing a report on the Hyderabad experience, and we
will have it as soon as possible.

 

Thanks. I look forward to a discussion on this possibility.

Saludos, Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Enero de 2009 04:31 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF

 

One of the major topics for the February 23-24 consultations in Geneva is
the Review of IGF, and if possible we should make a statement on this.

Below is our earlier statement on this subject which we should review and
improve if possible. I think we should bear in mind that the consultation
will be more interested in the process of the review - our earlier statement
addressed both the process and what we believe should be the outcome. I
think we should concentrate now on how the review should proceed rather than
what its findings should be.

Any comments on the text below? We should try to arrive at a common position
if possible by mid February.

 

Our earlier statement - 

The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is
regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another
consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of
the IGF.

Process of review

As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered
on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should
be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal
processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond
IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for
different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings.

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil
society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women,
ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached
out to.

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of
review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to
rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such
a politically sensitive and important assessment.

The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global
public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political
significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy
institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one
such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global
institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives,
and partnerships are a good way to ensure it.

It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest,
preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a
workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one
with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should
feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'.

 

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure

 

On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond
its first mandated period of five years.

It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in
the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the
IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.

Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy
making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and
democratic.

The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at
the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note
that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF
should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal
relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental
domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global
civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its
assistance to the IGF in this regard.

A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to
some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional
work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be
useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also
incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this
direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby
WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main
sessions.

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have
stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of
special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such
funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of
the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional
activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the
IGF across geographies and social groups.

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few
years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where
different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different
orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF
secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is
very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that
they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this
unique global institution.

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/6c5f8d21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 16:40:52 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:40:52 +1100
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <F1D94D56CDBF4407964FAF0F2F3CABEC@IAN>
Message-ID: <D8AAF6A4509143559BF6C400C13982BE@IAN>

Something else we should mention in this call, and make clear as this has
been continually stressed within IGF 

All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to
have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: 06 January 2009 07:20
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
> 
> Just the email address and date details for nominations, Fouad - they will
> be determined by Nomcom committee
> 
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 05 January 2009 23:11
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
> >
> > what will follow in the asterisks? -  Nominations must be sent to
> > ******* no later than midnight (date)**** UTC~
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
> > > Given our tight timetable for MAG nominations, I am suggesting the
> > following
> > > as a draft for the incoming Nomcom to consider as a call for
> proposals.
> > It
> > > includes broad considerations for nominations. It largely follows last
> > years
> > > draft. So as to give the Nomcom feedback on this, please post any
> > comments
> > > for their consideration. I expect that a call for proposals will be
> > issued
> > > by the Nomcom chair shortly after the Nomcom is announced.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Draft follows
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing
> > >
> > > IGC recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may
> not
> > >
> > > be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity,
> and
> > >
> > > broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as
> > >
> > > adopted by the caucus at different times.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > . In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to
> > >
> > > be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her
> > >
> > > candidature.
> > >
> > > . Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention
> > >
> > > with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person
> > >
> > > in the IG and information society arena. The person should be informed
> > that
> > > these details submitted may be published even if the nomination is
> > > unsuccessful.
> > >
> > > . Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person
> > >
> > > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG.
> > >
> > > . Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how
> they
> > > carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating
> > and
> > > pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions.
> > >
> > > Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS
> > >
> > > constituencies, may also be mentioned.
> > >
> > > Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
> > >
> > > MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies,
> > >
> > > including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies
> > >
> > > and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as
> > >
> > > well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nominations must be sent to ******* no later than midnight (date)****
> > UTC~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 16:53:41 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:53:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF: Remote
 Participation
References: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN> <00ba01c96f7c$f07929b0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740D70@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

Ginger,

You don't get to take off your co-coordinator hat for the next year, it is  glued to your head.

But co-coordinators can state opinions and suggest ideas, we kind of hope you do. 

If you can get your report out fast that would probably help make discussion of this more productive. 

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 4:31 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF: Remote Participation
 
Note, I propose the following idea as a member of the IGC, not as
co-coordinator:

 

I think this is a pivotal moment for the IGF and that the IGC should make a
short, concise statement, perhaps based on the previous one, with the
intention of supporting the process and defending it from detractors in the
best possible way: pointing out its success so far, and proposing concrete,
substantial change for progress on issues and on the process itself.

 

Since this is a moment to suggest substantial changes for the improvement of
the process, I ask that the IGC discuss the possibility to suggest a strong
commitment to strengthening the remote participation facet of the IGF, based
on the increasing foundation established by the IGF Secretariat in each of
the three IGFs so far.  While far from perfect, the RP in Hyderabad was
impressive, and sets a precedent for multistakeholderism and inclusion of
regional contributions to the IGF and other processes. In addition, RP has
the significant stimulus of discussion of IGF and local and regional
projects that do not depend on the central IGF process alone. This can
catalyze an increase in the speed of effects of productive IG at the
regional, local and grassroots levels which is otherwise much slower to take
place, under the umbrella and guidance of the IGF principles.

 

This change in priority for the IGF should go hand in hand with the
promotion of Remote Participation as a principal emerging issue for the
constructive application of IGF and HR issues in an organized way.

 

The RP Working Group is writing a report on the Hyderabad experience, and we
will have it as soon as possible.

 

Thanks. I look forward to a discussion on this possibility.

Saludos, Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Enero de 2009 04:31 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF

 

One of the major topics for the February 23-24 consultations in Geneva is
the Review of IGF, and if possible we should make a statement on this.

Below is our earlier statement on this subject which we should review and
improve if possible. I think we should bear in mind that the consultation
will be more interested in the process of the review - our earlier statement
addressed both the process and what we believe should be the outcome. I
think we should concentrate now on how the review should proceed rather than
what its findings should be.

Any comments on the text below? We should try to arrive at a common position
if possible by mid February.

 

Our earlier statement - 

The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is
regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another
consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of
the IGF.

Process of review

As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered
on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should
be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal
processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond
IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for
different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings.

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil
society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women,
ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached
out to.

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of
review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to
rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such
a politically sensitive and important assessment.

The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global
public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political
significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy
institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one
such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global
institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives,
and partnerships are a good way to ensure it.

It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest,
preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a
workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one
with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should
feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'.

 

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure

 

On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond
its first mandated period of five years.

It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in
the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the
IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.

Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy
making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and
democratic.

The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at
the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note
that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF
should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal
relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental
domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global
civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its
assistance to the IGF in this regard.

A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to
some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional
work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be
useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also
incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this
direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby
WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main
sessions.

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have
stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of
special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such
funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of
the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional
activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the
IGF across geographies and social groups.

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few
years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where
different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different
orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF
secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is
very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that
they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this
unique global institution.

 

 

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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 7118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/9ac2a5ca/attachment.bin>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Jan  5 18:56:48 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:56:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] Draft for Feedback- Call for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <D8AAF6A4509143559BF6C400C13982BE@IAN>
References: <D8AAF6A4509143559BF6C400C13982BE@IAN>
Message-ID: <E11D3CDF-C8B2-420A-B7EA-ACF7B4D01A4C@acm.org>


On 5 Jan 2009, at 16:40, Ian Peter wrote:

>
> All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are  
> expected to
> have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups.
>

not only with respective SG, but also with several stakeholder groups.

diversity of many sorts seems valued especially when the same person  
can fill  several requirements (i.a.. SG group, region, gender, and  
even linkages such as outreach with other SG groups)


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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jan  5 21:49:16 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:49:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF
In-Reply-To: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN>
References: <6F45D1FBB662427A942A76C1F56B033D@IAN>
Message-ID: <D3647621-8102-43FB-B5C4-9E6F4BFE8BDA@ciroap.org>

On 06/01/2009, at 5:00 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Any comments on the text below? We should try to arrive at a common  
> position if possible by mid February.
>
In my view we need to be stronger on the importance of an  
*independent* review, which ICC/BASIS, ridiculously, opposed in  
September.  The appropriate place to highlight this would be in this  
paragraph:

> If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the  
> process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is  
> not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency  
> that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important  
> assessment.
>
Rather than "If it is found necessary", we should begin by saying  
something like, "In order to demonstrate that the review 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)."

-- 
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 kpeters at tldainc.org  Mon Jan  5 22:36:44 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:36:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
Message-ID: <20090105203644.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.a48cfcf4a8.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/48542995/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  5 22:52:59 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:52:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To:  <20090105203644.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.a48cfcf4a8.wbe@email.secu
 reserver.net>
References:  <20090105203644.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.a48cfcf4a8.wbe@email.secu
 reserver.net>
Message-ID: <p06240809c58885cbd246@[221.115.9.43]>

>


Karl, see the date of the article, Posted: December 02, 2003

Not so relevant now.

Adam




>Just read an intriguing article on the Internet and desire of many 
>to place it under the UN. Any here either for or against such a plan 
>in any noticeable way? Please read article linked below...
>
>A U.N. grab for Internet control?
>Proposal expected at global summit in Geneva
>
>To view the entire article, visit 
><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=22075>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=22075
>
>-Karl E. Peters
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 00:04:04 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:04:04 -0700
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
Message-ID: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090105/65fe76b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 00:45:57 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:45:57 +1100
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <44964E7ACC5B46C790E6B33FC4F959A4@IAN>

Karl, the debate has moved on a little since 2003 and the article you
mention. There remains widespread opposition to the two unilateral roles the
US government continues to hold in the ICANN/IANA space (the JPA and the
root zone authorization roles) - this is opposed by a significant number of
governments, most groups within civil society, and significant groups within
the private sector and technical communities.

 

However this does not mean necessarily a "UN takeover". China to a degree
restated its position during the Hyderabad meeting, to say "all governments
or no governments". Put another way, this might mean an equal role for all
governments. There is a lot of room to define what that role is (if any) and
how it might be reflected in internet governance structures.

 

That's a long way from any "UN takeover". I don't think that is on many
agendas now, although some would argue for a stronger ITU role. But I think
it's fair to say that many positions are evolving during the IGF process and
not too many are absolute. 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Karl E. Peters [mailto:kpeters at tldainc.org] 
Sent: 06 January 2009 16:04
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
Subject: RE: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?

 

    Please do not confuse old with irrelevant! Is this no longer concern to
you in any way because you already read it? That's a bit perplexing... What
has happened since to make this a non-issue? I am new to the list and simply
wondered what participants on an internet governance list thought about
proposed changes to internet governance.

-Karl E. Peters

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, January 05, 2009 10:52 pm
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>

>
Karl, see the date of the article, Posted: December 02, 2003

Not so relevant now.

Adam




>Just read an intriguing article on the Internet and desire of many 
>to place it under the UN. Any here either for or against such a plan 
>in any noticeable way? Please read article linked below...
>
>A U.N. grab for Internet control?
>Proposal expected at global summit in Geneva
>
>To view the entire article, visit 
><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=22075>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?p
ageId=22075
>
>-Karl E. Peters
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/252869bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Jan  6 01:57:48 2009
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:57:48 +0700
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net>

On Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:04:04 Karl E. Peters wrote:

>     Please do not confuse old with irrelevant! Is this no longer concern to
> you in any way because you already read it? That's a bit perplexing... What
> has happened since to make this a non-issue? I am new to the list and
> simply wondered what participants on an internet governance list thought
> about proposed changes to internet governance. -Karl E. Peters

It is not only "old" in time - the IGF process, which started as a result of 
the two UN WSIS summits in 2003 and 2005 has provided a wider field of 
discussion, where also the old ideas have been dealt with - including the 
statements of the ITU secretary-general at the last ICANN meeting in Cairo - 
expressing an ITU perspective, quite different from the broader UN IGF 
process.

I assume you are aware that all these things are in flux and cannot be briefly 
summed up - as the different opinions and positions are under discussion in 
different fora.


Norbert Klein

-- 
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9

If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - 
you can find something new every day:

http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 03:18:04 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:48:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To: <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net>
References: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
	 <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260901060018o2bc090e5w34934ea2accdd946@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Norbert, Ian and All,

It may not be a bad idea for the Caucus to think of this as a prompt to
define the important and current issues in Internet Governance. Ian's
response identified the US's Government's unilateral role and the Chinese
position "all governments or no governments".  Can we expand on this
exercise to identify the top ten or twenty issues in Internet Governance? It
would help us all to be a little structured and more effective in what we
raise and discuss.

-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy>
<http://www.facebook.com/people/Sivasubramanian-Muthusamy/620875817>





On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:04:04 Karl E. Peters wrote:
>
> >     Please do not confuse old with irrelevant! Is this no longer concern
> to
> > you in any way because you already read it? That's a bit perplexing...
> What
> > has happened since to make this a non-issue? I am new to the list and
> > simply wondered what participants on an internet governance list thought
> > about proposed changes to internet governance. -Karl E. Peters
>
> It is not only "old" in time - the IGF process, which started as a result
> of
> the two UN WSIS summits in 2003 and 2005 has provided a wider field of
> discussion, where also the old ideas have been dealt with - including the
> statements of the ITU secretary-general at the last ICANN meeting in Cairo
> -
> expressing an ITU perspective, quite different from the broader UN IGF
> process.
>
> I assume you are aware that all these things are in flux and cannot be
> briefly
> summed up - as the different opinions and positions are under discussion in
> different fora.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
>
> --
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
> PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly
> -
> you can find something new every day:
>
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/7321064f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Jan  6 03:45:32 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:45:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To: <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net>
References:  <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secu
 reserver.net> <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <p0624081ac588ca70e900@[221.115.9.43]>

>On Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:04:04 Karl E. Peters wrote:
>
>>      Please do not confuse old with irrelevant! Is this no longer concern to
>>  you in any way because you already read it? That's a bit perplexing... What
>>  has happened since to make this a non-issue? I am new to the list and
>>  simply wondered what participants on an internet governance list thought
>>  about proposed changes to internet governance. -Karl E. Peters
>
>It is not only "old" in time - the IGF process, which started as a result of
>the two UN WSIS summits in 2003 and 2005 has provided a wider field of
>discussion, where also the old ideas have been dealt with - including the
>statements of the ITU secretary-general at the last ICANN meeting in Cairo -
>expressing an ITU perspective, quite different from the broader UN IGF
>process.
>
>I assume you are aware that all these things are in flux and cannot be briefly
>summed up - as the different opinions and positions are under discussion in
>different fora.
>


The transcripts from the Hyderabad meeting 
critical Internet resources sessions (open 
dialogue 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/OD_CIR.html>) 
and chair's summary 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hydera/Chairman%27s%20Summary.10.12.2.pdf> 
(page 13-15?) perhaps helpful for examples of 
where the discussion's at now.

Adam


>Norbert Klein
>
>--
>Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
>If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly -
>you can find something new every day:
>
>http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
>http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Jan  6 04:01:11 2009
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:01:11 +0700
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260901060018o2bc090e5w34934ea2accdd946@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090105220404.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.47968bc322.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <200901061357.48528.nhklein@gmx.net> <fecfce260901060018o2bc090e5w34934ea2accdd946@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200901061601.11428.nhklein@gmx.net>

On Tuesday, 6 January 2009 15:18:04 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

> Hello Norbert, Ian and All,
>
> It may not be a bad idea for the Caucus to think of this as a prompt to
> define the important and current issues in Internet Governance. Ian's
> response identified the US's Government's unilateral role and the Chinese
> position "all governments or no governments".  Can we expand on this
> exercise to identify the top ten or twenty issues in Internet Governance?
> It would help us all to be a little structured and more effective in what
> we raise and discuss.
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Thanks - acceptable - but I just did not feel I myself could say more at 
present.


Norbert


-- 
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9

If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - 
you can find something new every day:

http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Jan  6 05:29:18 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:29:18 +1100
Subject: [governance] Independent chair for nomcom
Message-ID: <30332CC2AE91496FA07C91097C84AF8D@IAN>

Just to let you know that Dr Derrick Cogburn has consented to take on the
role of independent chair for the MAG Nomcom. Ginger and I as co-
coordinators are pleased to be able to put his name forward - he is
currently deeply embedded in snowfields but will emerge soon to assist in
this area. Many thanks to Derrick for offering his services once again.

 

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/69919de5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ginger at paque.net  Tue Jan  6 07:50:54 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:20:54 -0430
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes today, January 6th, 23:59
 GMT--last call --(Current 33)
Message-ID: <002301c96ffd$6b2314c0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Thanks to all of our volunteers—we have a great MAG Noncom Pool, and a
confirmed, experienced independent chair (Dr. Derrick Cogburn).

 

Below is the confirmed list of the MAG Noncom Pool. New members can be added
or data confirmed until midnight today, GMT/UTC, at which time the list will
be closed and I will post the final list.  Personally, I think the MAG
recommendations are one of the most important things the IGC does, as it
affects our input into the IGF process. I would like to thank all volunteers
and Dr. Cogburn for taking on this responsibility. 

 

Once the list is closed, confirmations should be made, and Avri will begin
the random selection process.

 

Thanks everybody!

Saludos, Ginger

 

 

1.  Jeanette Hofmann

2.  Maja Andjelkovic

3.  Philippe Dam

4.  Hanane Boujemi

5.  Raquel Gatto

6.  Rafik Dammak

7.  Shaila Mistry

8.  Tricia Wang

9.  Anja Kovacs

10. Hempal Shrestha

11. Adam Peake

12. Ken Lohento

13. Emmanuel Edet

14. Renate Bloem

15. Schombe Baudoin

16. Thomas Lowenhaupt

17. Javier Pinzón

18. Tapani Tarvainen

19. Tijani Ben Jemaa

20. Katitza Rodriguez

21. Jameleddine Khemakhem

22. Norbert Klein

23. Rudi Vansnick

24. Omar Kaminski

25. Ray Plzak

26. Siranush Vardanyan

27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)

28. Bret Fausett

29. Asif Kabani

30. Dave Kissoondoyal

31. Stephanie Psaila

32. Stuart Hamilton

33. Jeffrey Hunker

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/563a5265/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jan  6 07:52:20 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:22:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was;  a very grounded
 and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net> <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>

Steve

Thanks for supporting the 'publicness of the Internet' advocacy plank. 
One of the fliers of your save-our-internet campaign captures it just 
right - 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is /ours/'.

I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public 
interest advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original 
open, public and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be 
strategic in our advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is 
for this reason that I mentioned in my original email in this thread 
that though I/ we have some problems with the way the term Network 
Neutrality is being used by many, it is still one of the most 
appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working under.

However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our 
attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are 
hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, 
we think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required 
before we can move forward in this area.. Lawrence Lessig, who is 
credited with co-inventing the term NN, sees NN as something that many 
others do not see NN as. I surfed the net on this issue a bit in the 
last few days and I am quite sure that an overwhelming number of people 
who support NN, and are rather passionate about it, are supporting 
something which is very different from what some leaders of NN movement 
(like Lessig) seem to be (now?) fighting for. In the circumstances, 
people need to know what they are supporting before they support it. 
This will foreclose what increasingly looks to me to be an impending 
eventuality - some leaders of the campaign coming back and reporting - 
we have won NN (for you!), and a celebration goes around, when what they 
would have gotten would still be enough to kill the Internet.

Which is why, since you lead an important NN campaign in Canada - 
save-our-internet - (and from what I have read about this campaign it 
appears to me that it, unlike the US's save-the-internet campaign, is 
much clearer about what it wants) I wonder if you can help clarify which 
one of the following two situations meet your criterion of NN, and 
whether the two are not considerably different positions for people who 
are NN followers and foot-soldiers to be clear about what is what.

Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and 
discriminatory interferences with traffic based on their business 
interests and arrangements with different providers of content and 
applications. However, this does not mean that they may not charge 
content providers differently for quality and speed for transmitting 
their content, as long as this special treatment is available to all for 
the same price and conditions.

Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers 
for any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered 
Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per 
different charges.

It is my view that the situation described in the option 1 above while 
very important, is relatively easy to ensure. (I do agree that we still 
need to fight for getting even this level of fairness.) However, casting 
NN advocacy and struggle narrowly in these terms, in my view, may turn 
out to be even more dangerous that having no advocacy around NN, because 
it deludes most people who seem to think that they are fighting for a 
really equal, non-tiered, Internet when they join the NN  brigade.  In 
the end - as has been the experience of many an advocacy campaigns - it 
is likely that this confusion on what exactly is NN, and what different 
groups may be seeking and may be against, is most likely to damage the 
interests of those who have certain ideas about what Internet was meant 
to be, what it should be and what it can be, in terms of its potential 
for equity and social justice, or even as a democratic media and a 
'public sphere' etc.

While I agree on being strategic in joining forces on this key issue, I 
think greater clarity on the NN concept, and more discussion among civil 
society actors on what are we fighting for, and to what avail, including 
if needed building scenarios, is very important at this stage.

Thanks, and best regards. Parminder





Steve Anderson wrote:
> Hi all, I agree with overall vision concerning the publicness of the
> Internet, and less so with the laissez faire stuff.
>
> But this underlines a key element of Net Neutrality. There is a very
> broad and diverse constituency supporting Net Neutrality. This is
> important because the other side, while small in number, is very well
> financed and organized. Hence we can't afford lose anyone willing to
> work toward net neutrality. So I think keeping the principles simple
> and focused on net neutrality is key to this battle. I want the
> laissez faire people and public ownership people to work together on
> this - it's essential.
>
> I also support working on broader issues and forming coalitions for
> these. Some in Canada might be interested in the Campaign for
> Democratic Media Network:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/organizations-campaign-for-democratic-media-network
>
> Principles:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/our-principles
>
> -let me know if you're org wants to join the network.
>
> But for Net Neutrality I think the principles of the SaveOurNet.ca
> coalition are specific yet open enough to appeal most everyone who
> supports Net Neutrality. Namely it mentions both access issues and
> neutrality. Those who want to focus on the free market stuff can do
> work under these principles, as can those who support the public
> interest side of thing. For example, I'm working with several public
> internet groups in the coalition to make a coordinated public interest
> effort with the upcomming traffic management hearing. And I know
> Google and others are doing the same on the business side. This
> approach allows different groups and sub-sets to articulate their
> vision for the Internet, while also providing common ground for a
> broad coalition to operate. I think this is essential if we are to win
> this and broader digital divide issues.
>
> SON Description:
> SaveOurNet.ca is a coalition of citizens, businesses, and public
> interest groups fighting to protect our Internet's level playing
> field. We're calling on lawmakers and industry to protect openness,
> choice, and access for ALL Canadians — and stopping lobbyists and
> special interests from ruining Canada's Internet.
>
> Principles:
> http://saveournet.ca/content/saveournetca-principles
>
> If you support these I hope all of you will consider signing on as
> individuals and organizations here:
> http://saveournet.ca/members
>
> Bryan, is K-Net going to sign on?
>
> cheers,
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>>>> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
>>>> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
>>>>         
>>>>>> characteristics  (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should
>>>>>>             
>>>> be that
>>>>         
>>     
>>>> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>>>>         
>>     
>>> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
>>> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
>>> are private........ >So >the  critical feature of the internet is in many
>>> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>>>       
>> Milton
>>
>> First of all, it is clear from my usage above, and the background of this
>> issue in the 'publicness of the Internet' concept, that I speak of Internet
>> being public not in strict legal ownership terms, but in socio-political
>> terms. So you think the essential characteristic of the Internet is that it
>> is private ?? I do suspect so from your views on network neutrality, but I
>> will come to that in a seperate email.
>>
>> Your counter-arguments to my propositions are a bit slippery, and shifting.
>> When confronting the 'ownership' issue (not legalistic-ally, but as everyone
>> having in principle full and equal right to) you speak of the Internet as
>> the physical networks. And when I speak of the 'purpose' of the Internet,
>> you switch to speaking of the Internet as its essential protocols. Thats a
>> bit, shall I say, disingenuous :-). Because if we speak of Internet as its
>> essential protocols it is easy to agree about the publicness of the
>> Internet. On the other hand, if we speak of it as physical networks built
>> with private investments it is easier to speak of its purpose - which is
>> private gain, with no guarantee of public interest and gains.
>>
>> This brings us to the essential issue which my email dealt with - trying to
>> figure out the essential nature of the Internet, as we would like to have,
>> and from their possibly derive the basic public policy principles for it.
>> Would you not agree that this will be the logical way to go about it. I know
>> you too are quite interested in developing the basic public policy
>> principles for the Internet. Would you then state what you think are the
>> essential characteristics of the Internet, and then we can debate it.
>>
>>     
>>> The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only because
>>> they allow any and all private networks and privately owned equipment to be
>>>       
>>>> interconnected.
>>>>         
>> Any public system - roads, infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are
>> useful only because they facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows
>> that. This does not obliterate the difference between the public and the
>> private, does it!
>>
>>     
>>> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
>>> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
>>> regulate....
>>>       
>> and the understanding and the capacity of the corporates to appropriate.
>>
>>     
>>> one could say that its effect was more libertarian than egalitarian. But
>>> its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field and afford those
>>> interested in >communicating more equal rights than they have ever had
>>> before.
>>>       
>> This is interesting. You say that the socio-political impact of the Internet
>> was incidental. Fine, I may accept that, but you also seem to be
>> non-committal about how it should be, hereon. Don't you want the Internet to
>> have any (socio-political) directions and purpose. If you do want to it to
>> have any, would you please state it. The whole debate is about that. That is
>> what we all are where about.
>>
>>     
>>> more libertarian than egalitarian.
>>>       
>> Now, this is fair turf. This is really what we are discussing, the above was
>> mostly avoidable red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used by so
>> many different types, that it often confuses me. I understand you are
>> professing views more of what may be called as right-libertarian kind.
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, in India we are still not very used to
>> these terms). Since we want to keep our discussion practical, and
>> purposeful, I think a very good instantiation of the above political
>> difference is in our views on network neutrality. Will discuss in another
>> email.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Parminder:
>>
>> Happy holidays, all. Sorry for the slow response.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we have had this conversation before, and you always have to
>> agree that I am right but it never seems to make an impression on your
>> political rhetoric. So I will try again (because
>> I am just as persistent as you, and will not allow policies or principles
>> that are incorrect to be established simply because someone keeps repeating
>> them.
>>
>>
>>
>> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
>> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
>> characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should be
>> that
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
>> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
>> are private. The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful
>> only because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned
>> equipment to be interconnected. It is, in other words, the correct mixture
>> of private and public elements, in their respective roles (to quote the TA)
>> that makes it a success. The open protocols allow private initiative to
>> flourish, and enable people to offer content and services without asking the
>> public for permission. So the critical feature of the internet is in many
>> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that this does not conform to your ideology, but it's a fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.   and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation – it is egalitarian
>> (definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage Dictionary –
>> "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political,
>> economic, social, and civil rights for all people")
>>
>>
>>
>> Again I think you've got it wrong.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, the internet protocols do not have a "purpose" other than
>> to establish compatible data communications among any and all networks.
>> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
>> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
>> regulate, one could say that its effect was more libertarian than
>> egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field
>> and afford those interested in communicating more equal rights than they
>> have ever had before.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most essential to
>> what we call as the Internet – their contextual elaborations can always be
>> done, in different circumstances and as related to different issues and
>> aspects. No doubts, such elaboration will itself be a political process,
>> subject to political trade-offs. The question is, are we as a world
>> community – and to start with as a group of progressive civil society – able
>> to agree to these (or any other) social and political principles to be the
>> highest constitutive principles for the Internet.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, exacting
>> respect for the technical and historical facts.
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/9bfcd337/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 09:47:39 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:47:39 -0200
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list closes today, January 6th,
In-Reply-To: <002301c96ffd$6b2314c0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <002301c96ffd$6b2314c0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <49636F0B.6000901@rits.org.br>

Good work! Let us see how the regional balance will look like once the
selection process is concluded.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Ginger Paque wrote:
> Thanks to all of our volunteers—we have a great MAG Noncom Pool, and a
> confirmed, experienced independent chair (Dr. Derrick Cogburn).
> 
>  
> 
> Below is the confirmed list of the MAG Noncom Pool. New members can be added
> or data confirmed until midnight today, GMT/UTC, at which time the list will
> be closed and I will post the final list.  Personally, I think the MAG
> recommendations are one of the most important things the IGC does, as it
> affects our input into the IGF process. I would like to thank all volunteers
> and Dr. Cogburn for taking on this responsibility. 
> 
>  
> 
> Once the list is closed, confirmations should be made, and Avri will begin
> the random selection process.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks everybody!
> 
> Saludos, Ginger
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
> 
> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
> 
> 3.  Philippe Dam
> 
> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
> 
> 5.  Raquel Gatto
> 
> 6.  Rafik Dammak
> 
> 7.  Shaila Mistry
> 
> 8.  Tricia Wang
> 
> 9.  Anja Kovacs
> 
> 10. Hempal Shrestha
> 
> 11. Adam Peake
> 
> 12. Ken Lohento
> 
> 13. Emmanuel Edet
> 
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 
> 15. Schombe Baudoin
> 
> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
> 
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 
> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
> 
> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
> 
> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
> 
> 22. Norbert Klein
> 
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 
> 24. Omar Kaminski
> 
> 25. Ray Plzak
> 
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
> 
> 27. JFC Morfin (Note: joined 16 November 2008)
> 
> 28. Bret Fausett
> 
> 29. Asif Kabani
> 
> 30. Dave Kissoondoyal
> 
> 31. Stephanie Psaila
> 
> 32. Stuart Hamilton
> 
> 33. Jeffrey Hunker
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
secretário executivo
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Álvaro Alvim, 16 - 21º andar - Centro
20031-010 Rio de Janeiro RJ
------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 11:42:32 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:42:32 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded
 and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
	 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>

> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.

It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
parts"

>
> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest
> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public
> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our
> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that
> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some
> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it
> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
> under.
>
> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we
> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
> can move forward in this area..

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/

-- 
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  Tue Jan  6 14:31:48 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:31:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded
 and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC><20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><49562889.6070905@itforchange.net><dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com><49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740D78@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

It's more more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
collectively, the public Internet is greater than the sum of its constituent
parts"

Like you say McTim, private inter-(nets) are no big deal.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 11:42 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Cc: Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
 
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>

> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.

It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
parts"

>
> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest
> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public
> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our
> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that
> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some
> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it
> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
> under.
>
> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we
> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
> can move forward in this area..

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/74ea7fad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 14:46:41 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:46:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was;  a very
In-Reply-To: <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20090106194623.9BB96A6CA3@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Dear Parminder,
I am afraid the NNs you describe cannot exist because they are not 
technically stable. Neutrality means that the system is not to be 
part of any conflict, and equally support competitors. If someone 
pays more, neutrality is to give him more. To say that everyone must 
pay the same and get the same is business egalitarism. To make sure 
everyone get the same lowest grade service, in the hope this will 
help that minimum to grow, is collectivism. Taking care of people is 
to give each and everyone what they need for the price they can pay. 
This calls for efficiency first, i.e. for the traffic cost to be at 
the lowest for the highest quality.

The international network was built to be efficient. Neutrality 
(which actually implies: "keep accounting simple") is an efficiency 
tool. Egalitarism is not. But may you are right, the legacy Internet 
was built to be egalitarian. Some people being just more equal than 
others. Let be careful, enforcing whatever NN on top of it will 
constraining. Constraints in a dynamic system lead to mid-term instability.
jfc

At 13:52 06/01/2009, Parminder wrote:
>I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public 
>interest advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its 
>original open, public and egalitarian conception.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/ce102692/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  6 15:31:31 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:31:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: What is Network Neutrality - was;  a very
 grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and discriminatory interferences with traffic based on their business interests and arrangements with different providers of content and applications. However, this does not mean that they may not charge content providers differently for quality and speed for transmitting their content, as long as this special treatment is available to all for the same price and conditions.

Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per different charges.

you have framed these options poorly.

Define better what you mean by different "quality and speed" in Option 1. Does it mean that a telecom can't sell me DSL because someone else can only afford dial up? If not, how is the effect of such economic differentiation any different than nondiscriminatory offerings of faster treatment?

Have you considered that end users might benefit from such anarragnement? it is clear you olny see the benefit for the suppliers.

Does Option 2 mean Akamai becomes an  illegal business? (do you know what Akamai does?) Does it mean that edge caching becomes illegal? if no, how is the effect different from what you purport to oppose?

Who gets classified as "telecoms"? (don't think the answer to that one is simpe, my friend. i can point you to decades of regulatory debate with millions or billions hanging on the answer).

please don't impose your own egalitarian fantasies on the internet. imposed equality has nothing to do with what the internet is, what it was, or what made it successful.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/938951ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Jan  6 16:53:22 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:53:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: What is Network Neutrality - was;  a very
 grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC> <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net> <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com> <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <506EE01B-7FEA-4CCD-9628-8A9C69921E84@acm.org>


On 6 Jan 2009, at 15:31, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> please don't impose your own egalitarian fantasies on the internet.  
> imposed equality has nothing to do with what the internet is, what  
> it was, or what made it successful.
>


but as i have always understood it , the best effort Internet was  
indeed egalitarian with the exception or routing updates.  so why is  
it ok, for the best effort Internet to cease offering equal best  
effort for everyone and for all content?

i tend to believe that it was indeed this egalitarian best effort that  
made the Internet successful.

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 ginger at paque.net  Tue Jan  6 19:32:32 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:02:32 -0430
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list is now closed
Message-ID: <00dd01c9705f$6ff48670$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Hi everyone,

 

Below is the complete MAG Noncom Pool list. Please review for errors, and
let us know immediately if there are any corrections to be made. The list is
now closed, and Avri will begin the random selection process.

 

Thanks to everyone who volunteered, and to Derrick and Avri for their work
as well.

Saludos, Ginger

 

 

1.  Jeanette Hofmann

2.  Maja Andjelkovic

3.  Philippe Dam

4.  Hanane Boujemi

5.  Raquel Gatto

6.  Rafik Dammak

7.  Shaila Mistry

8.  Tricia Wang

9.  Anja Kovacs

10. Hempal Shrestha

11. Adam Peake

12. Ken Lohento

13. Emmanuel Edet

14. Renate Bloem

15. Schombe Baudoin

16. Thomas Lowenhaupt

17. Javier Pinzón

18. Tapani Tarvainen

19. Tijani Ben Jemaa

20. Katitza Rodriguez

21. Jameleddine Khemakhem

22. Norbert Klein

23. Rudi Vansnick

24. Omar Kaminski

25. Ray Plzak

26. Siranush Vardanyan

27. Bret Fausett

28. Asif Kabani

29. Dave Kissoondoyal

30. Stephanie Psaila

31. Stuart Hamilton

32. Jeffrey Hunker

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090106/abacbe25/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From asif at kabani.co.uk  Tue Jan  6 19:42:12 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:42:12 +0500
Subject: [governance] MAG Noncom Pool list is now closed
In-Reply-To: <00dd01c9705f$6ff48670$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <00dd01c9705f$6ff48670$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901061642r5790c2f6p8f7c7f2f872a1462@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the update

Regards

Sincerely


Asif Kabani

2009/1/7 Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net>:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Below is the complete MAG Noncom Pool list. Please review for errors, and
> let us know immediately if there are any corrections to be made. The list is
> now closed, and Avri will begin the random selection process.
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone who volunteered, and to Derrick and Avri for their work
> as well.
>
> Saludos, Ginger
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>
> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>
> 3.  Philippe Dam
>
> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>
> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>
> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>
> 7.  Shaila Mistry
>
> 8.  Tricia Wang
>
> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>
> 10. Hempal Shrestha
>
> 11. Adam Peake
>
> 12. Ken Lohento
>
> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>
> 14. Renate Bloem
>
> 15. Schombe Baudoin
>
> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
>
> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
>
> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>
> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
>
> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>
> 22. Norbert Klein
>
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
>
> 24. Omar Kaminski
>
> 25. Ray Plzak
>
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> 27. Bret Fausett
>
> 28. Asif Kabani
>
> 29. Dave Kissoondoyal
>
> 30. Stephanie Psaila
>
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
>
> 32. Jeffrey Hunker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jan  7 06:00:51 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:30:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>	 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>	 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>


 >>they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.

>It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
>collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
>parts"

McTim

You are saying the same thing, just much less elegantly :-). 

We may own 'our' networks, but what is 'essentially' the Internet is not what anyone of us privately owns, but outside and beyond it. That is why we are saying that 'publicness' is Internet's essential character. 

But we need not stay in vague theoretical areas, and should strive to connect the above to real issues at hand. 

>>..we think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
>>can move forward in this area.. .

> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/

Thanks a lot for posting this link that starts with a link to Prof Ed 
Felten's article on 'three flavours of NN'
( 
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality 
) . I am very pleased to note that Ed describes the two main current 
conceptions of NN almost exactly as I did. (the third ' flavour' is the 
narrow technical principle which as i mentioned i have deliberately 
ignored).

(Milton,  since you said my NN typology is ' framed poorly', you may 
want to take notice)

McTim, since you forwarded this link to me, I would like to know whether 
you see NN as - using Ed's terms - an economic principle of non 
exclusive deals, or a free speech principle implying no content 
discrimination. Thats the real issue here.

Parminder

McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>   
>> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
>>     
>
> It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
> collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
> parts"
>
>   
>> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest
>> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public
>> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our
>> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that
>> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some
>> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it
>> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
>> under.
>>
>> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
>> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
>> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we
>> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
>> can move forward in this area..
>>     
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090107/eed260fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  7 06:09:10 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:09:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
References: <44964E7ACC5B46C790E6B33FC4F959A4@IAN>
Message-ID: <44B35DDBD6E745AB902EDEE8B144D4C4@PCbureau>

I partly agree Ian's opinion in the two last paragraphs of his mail. I'd just remind our list members the position of the large majority of the DCs through the whole WSIS  that strongly supported the idea of UN/ITU -or ITU-only- be involved in IG. Unfortunately, actual DCs are not present in the IGF process for obvious reasons. On our list we are "listening to the same tenors" all year long". That's quite fine but not sufficient for me : since I do like music (and a lot of other list members do as well) I want "to listen carefully the whole choir" ! This is far more more interesting ! And really inclusive as we aked for in our WSIS Declarations !

Therefore, in my opinion, CS should advocate in some way the position of absent DCs by considering these options in the debate on IG(F)'s Future. 



Of course, in my opinion this IG evolution issue is strongly linked to the (urgent) ITU move towards a really CS-open UN Agency, like e.g. Unesco. And this is another battle to be fought by the CS, as asked for i.a. by Bill Drake. 



Let's try to be as consistent as possible in our longer term views, and have in mind both these issues when defining our strategy and proposals for IG evolution, or better said when trying to shape the "post-ICANN" Internet policy.



All the best for you in 2009 !



Jean-Louis Fullsack





----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Ian Peter 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Karl E. Peters' 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 6:45 AM
  Subject: RE: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?


  Karl, the debate has moved on a little since 2003 and the article you mention. There remains widespread opposition to the two unilateral roles the US government continues to hold in the ICANN/IANA space (the JPA and the root zone authorization roles) - this is opposed by a significant number of governments, most groups within civil society, and significant groups within the private sector and technical communities.

   

  However this does not mean necessarily a "UN takeover". China to a degree restated its position during the Hyderabad meeting, to say "all governments or no governments". Put another way, this might mean an equal role for all governments. There is a lot of room to define what that role is (if any) and how it might be reflected in internet governance structures.

   

  That's a long way from any "UN takeover". I don't think that is on many agendas now, although some would argue for a stronger ITU role. But I think it's fair to say that many positions are evolving during the IGF process and not too many are absolute. 

   

  Ian Peter

  PO Box 429

  Bangalow NSW 2479

  Australia

  Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

  www.ianpeter.com

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Karl E. Peters [mailto:kpeters at tldainc.org] 
  Sent: 06 January 2009 16:04
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
  Subject: RE: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?

   

      Please do not confuse old with irrelevant! Is this no longer concern to you in any way because you already read it? That's a bit perplexing... What has happened since to make this a non-issue? I am new to the list and simply wondered what participants on an internet governance list thought about proposed changes to internet governance.

  -Karl E. Peters

   

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
    From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
    Date: Mon, January 05, 2009 10:52 pm
    To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>

    >
    Karl, see the date of the article, Posted: December 02, 2003

    Not so relevant now.

    Adam




    >Just read an intriguing article on the Internet and desire of many 
    >to place it under the UN. Any here either for or against such a plan 
    >in any noticeable way? Please read article linked below...
    >
    >A U.N. grab for Internet control?
    >Proposal expected at global summit in Geneva
    >
    >To view the entire article, visit 
    ><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=22075>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=22075
    >
    >-Karl E. Peters
    >
    >____________________________________________________________
    >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    > governance at lists.cpsr.org
    >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
    >
    >For all list information and functions, see:
    > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

    ____________________________________________________________
    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
    To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

    For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090107/33287cfe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From kpeters at tldainc.org  Wed Jan  7 07:54:57 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:54:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] A U.N. grab for Internet control?
Message-ID: <20090107055457.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.bba5981e00.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090107/e945fb8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan  7 13:40:59 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:40:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
 <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20090107184138.B283867848@smtp1.electricembers.net>

At 12:00 07/01/2009, Parminder wrote:
>McTim, since you forwarded this link to me, I would like to know 
>whether you see NN as - using Ed's terms - an economic principle of 
>non exclusive deals, or a free speech principle implying no content 
>discrimination. Thats the real issue here.

I am afraid none makes technical, political, societal, economical, 
international sense to me. There are obviously a lot of things to 
discuss, but this seems to be a devil trap to me: between Yalta and 
Spam, money being the ultimate winner in both cases.
jfc

any way .... 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html>html


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090107/8f7765db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  7 17:33:01 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:33:01 +0500
Subject: [governance] Pakistan ICT Policy Network - 3 Years of BytesforAll
 Networking
Message-ID: <701af9f70901071433jecb98e2q50c895b79439a1ca@mail.gmail.com>

Pakistan ICT Policy Network - 3 Years of BytesforAll Networking

(Fouad Bajwa, BytesforAll Pakistan) "National ICT Policy should be
developed through an open and inclusive process comprising of public
consensus and a model that facilitates inclusion of the rural
citizenry of Pakistan with a special focus on 67% rural members of the
national population otherwise we will not be part of a process that is
not people inclusive"...."PTA blocks websites again, we will find out
shortly the real story"...... "Young entrepreneur in Islamabad
arrested for false VOIP license violations has been released with the
efforts of the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor community members....". "A
computer for everyone, a laptop for every child, a productivity
machine and Internet for everyone in Pakistan"..."Pakistan needs to
step back to into its claim of the Internet control at IGF...."..."Who
is attending the Internet Governance Forum from Pakistan?"..."Invite:
Islamabad Bloggers Meetup, 5pm, Dec 29th @ Bahria University".....
"[pakistanictpolicy] PTA orders blockade of political webpage"...The
above captions and news beats are from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor
discussion list.

The Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor was created over 2 years ago on 20th
August 2006 and has reached a membership of 255 active members
belonging to sectors ranging from Civil Society, Decision Makers,
Pubic and Private Sectors, Academia and international ICT research
think tanks. This initiative was established by the BytesForAll Team,
members of the BytesForll.net South Asia Network, a mailing list where
readers and supporters who want to take part and want to be updated
about ICT and development-related issues in South Asia.

Since its inception, the Pakistan ICT Policy group has been dedicated
to bring into light, discuss, highlight and monitor ICT policy issues
in Pakistan. While highlighting and capturing ICT and development
related campaign issues in Pakistan, the group has registered civil
society perspectives to these issues. The group's members are actively
involved in bridging communication between ICT and development
professionals, technologists, policy makers, academia, media and
larger civil society leading to the launch of policy advocacy
campaigns around various ICT policy issues in the country. Today, the
Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor has evolved an information and knowlege
gateway for ICT and development communities in Pakistan.

Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor Network website is accessible at
http://pakistanictpolicy.bytesforall.net
Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor Network Group Discuss List is accessible
at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan  7 21:01:14 2009
From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:01:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bonne_Ann=E9e_/_Happy_New_Year_+_Hyd?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?erabad_videos?=
Message-ID: <49655E6A.4040709@mdpi.net>


Bonne Année / Happy New Year

/Image composée à partir de vues de ma rue à Paris
/Picture I made with views from my street in Paris

and as a new year gift for you all,  the video of the Hyderabad fiesta, 
 plus quite a few serious talks  as extra  bonus

, /et en cadeau pour la nouvelle année pour vous tous,  la vidéo de la
Fiesta d'Hyderabad,
accompagnée de quelques présentations sérieuses en bonus ( en Anglais...
on en fera d'autres en Français... )/

--------------------

Videos produced by Francis Muguet ( KNIS)  and Barbara Schneider (
Ynternet.org )
/Vidéos produites par Francis Muguet ( KNIS)  et Barbara Schneider (
Ynternet.org ) en anglais/

IGF Hyderabad 3 Dec. 2008 Bob Kahn / Handle system presentation
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7241465858934067205&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 3 Dec. 2008 Bob Kahn / Questions & Answers
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3264694105888598221&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 3 Dec. 2008 Francis Muguet / Net4D presentation
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4885984062308644317&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 3 Dec. 2008 Francis Muguet / Net4D Questions & Answers
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8242969705626304200&hl=en>

----------------------------

IGF Hyderabad 4 Dec. 2008 Sophie Le Pallec GS1
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3108997978003186603&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 4 Dec. 2008 Tony Vetter, Int. Inst. for Sustainable
Development.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2670171008558925591&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 4 Dec. 2008 Michael Niebel EU Commission
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4477474953879579900&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 4 Dec. 2008 Bernard Benhamou, French Ministry for Research
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3513507400250037141&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 4 Dec. 2008 Workshop 47. The Internet of things Discussion
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3294824978505780838&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 04 Dec 2008 Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6704049923832996009&hl=en>

----------------------------------

*IGF 04 Dec 2008 Gala Party Internet Governance Forum Hyderabad
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160015191805271963&hl=en>*

----------------------------------

IGF Hyderabad 06 Dec 2008 Bob Kahn
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=111322613077209046&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 06 Dec 08 Bernard Benhamou
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-710881980066968181&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 06dec 2008 Francis Muguet "Challenges of the Internet of
Things" <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4103860177808090667&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 06dec08 Internet of Things discussion
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3749938056921614653&hl=en>

IGF Hyderabad 06Dec08 Louis Pouzin Workshop "Internet of Things"
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7683815520410575495&hl=en>

-------------------------------------

IGF Hyderabad 06dec08 Michel Tchonang "Linguistic Diversity Dynamic
Coalition"
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-677447404819250980&hl=en>

 IGF Hyderabad 06dec08 Linguistic Diversity Coalition Discussion
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2733106428223475406&hl=en>

-----------------------------------

IGF Hyderabad 07dec2008 Seiiti Arata IGF YouTube Channel
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8813017886910049567&hl=en>

in the context of this last video where the interviewer/producer
of the IGF You Tube channel is himself interviewed... ;-)
 it is interesting to mention videos on
the IGF YouTube channel <http://www.youtube.com/igf>  related to people
that have been contributing to above listed videos :
Barbara Schneider
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eABH815QDf4&feature=channel_page>
Tatiana Ershova
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNkyaB9-XiE&feature=channel_page>
Tchonang Linze Michel
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf-cCKXfJ48&feature=channel_page>
Francis Muguet
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTJctQ1mvU&feature=channel_page>

/Quelques vidéos en plus sur le YouTube Channel du FGI.../





-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
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
------------------------------------------------------ 

Legal notice :
Except stated explicitely,
this message shall not be construed as the official position 
of above mentionned entities

Notice légale ;
A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué,
ce message ne constitue la position officielle
des entités mentionnées ci-dessos
-------------------------------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090108/9e5a2025/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 180270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090108/9e5a2025/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jan  7 22:38:23 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:08:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net> <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com> <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4965752F.1060200@itforchange.net>

Milton

 >you have framed these options poorly.

McTim has been very helpful in forwarding an article which has a senior 
professor and commentator in this area framing the options almost 
exactly as I did. However, if is doesnt suit your idealogical taste, I 
can hardly help it.

>Define better what you mean by different "quality and speed" in Option 
1. Does it mean that a telecom can't sell me DSL because someone else 
can only afford dial up? If> not, how is the effect of such economic 
differentiation any different than nondiscriminatory offerings of faster 
treatment?

You know very well the difference between charging differently for 
levels of access (pipe size, but without discriminating among different 
content) and charging for different speed and quality of relay of some 
content over other. Milton, do you seriously believe that the two things 
are the same, or even similar. The structural impact of the latter on 
the Internet will be devastatingly different from merely costing access 
differently, as happens already. And you know it very well.

>  Does Option 2 mean Akamai becomes an  illegal business? (do you know 
what Akamai does?) Does it mean that edge caching becomes illegal? if 
no, how is the effect > different from what you purport to oppose?

If a content provider is free to put his servers anywhere, the same can 
also be done through a third party. That is very different. Any such 
private service to enhance content in any way is just a outsourced 
private service. (Though the regulators will need to watch all such 
activities - especially of the systemic variety - closely to see where 
the line is crossed.) But anyone involved with the 'publicness' of the 
Internet, like a common carrier, should not provide such discriminatory 
services.   That should be the condition that the 'collective ownership 
of the Internet' imposes on anyone who wants to use / leverage the 
'public Internet'. Else the concerend telecom company can in any case 
use IP or any other technology for a 'private network' that can do 
whatever (within a different, less intrusive regulatory regime, if 
required, dealing with private networks).

>please don't impose your own egalitarian fantasies on the internet. 
imposed equality has nothing to do with what the internet is, what it 
was, or what made it successful.

'imposed equality'! Well, everything 'rights' is in a way an 'imposed 
equality', isnt it. And the IGC has been adopting statements on rights 
based approach to IG. Citizenship is also 'imposed equality'. If we dont 
impose any equality at all dont know where the world will be. In fact 
'imposed equality' also sounds like something of a 'social contract', 
which is an interesting idea and concept to explore. Since we mostly 
agree that the Internet underpins a new global social order (the 
information society) with new political basis and requirements, is there 
to be a 'social contract' vis a vis the Internet!

Parminder

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>  
>  
>
>     Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and
>     discriminatory interferences with traffic based on their business
>     interests and arrangements with different providers of content and
>     applications. However, this does not mean that they may not charge
>     content providers differently for quality and speed for
>     transmitting their content, as long as this special treatment is
>     available to all for the same price and conditions.
>
>     Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content
>     providers for any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do
>     not have a tiered Internet, with different quality and speed of
>     delivery of content as per different charges. 
>      
>     you have framed these options poorly.
>      
>     Define better what you mean by different "quality and speed" in
>     Option 1. Does it mean that a telecom can't sell me DSL because
>     someone else can only afford dial up? If not, how is the effect of
>     such economic differentiation any different than nondiscriminatory
>     offerings of faster treatment?
>      
>     Have you considered that end users might benefit from such
>     anarragnement? it is clear you olny see the benefit for the
>     suppliers.
>      
>     Does Option 2 mean Akamai becomes an  illegal business? (do you
>     know what Akamai does?) Does it mean that edge caching becomes
>     illegal? if no, how is the effect different from what you purport
>     to oppose?
>      
>     Who gets classified as "telecoms"? (don't think the answer to that
>     one is simpe, my friend. i can point you to decades of regulatory
>     debate with millions or billions hanging on the answer).
>      
>     please don't impose your own egalitarian fantasies on the
>     internet. imposed equality has nothing to do with what the
>     internet is, what it was, or what made it successful.
>      
>
>     Milton Mueller
>     Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>     XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>     ------------------------------
>     Internet Governance Project:
>     http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090108/18dfeb04/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan  8 09:34:43 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:34:43 -0200
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>	 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>	 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>	 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com> <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>

Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art00012),
which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.

In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.

However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> 
>>>they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
> 
>> It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
>> collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
>> parts"
> 
> McTim
> 
> You are saying the same thing, just much less elegantly :-).
> We may own 'our' networks, but what is 'essentially' the Internet is not
> what anyone of us privately owns, but outside and beyond it. That is why
> we are saying that 'publicness' is Internet's essential character.
> But we need not stay in vague theoretical areas, and should strive to
> connect the above to real issues at hand.
>>> ..we think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is
>>> required before we
>>> can move forward in this area.. .
> 
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/
> 
> Thanks a lot for posting this link that starts with a link to Prof Ed
> Felten's article on 'three flavours of NN'
> (
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality
> ) . I am very pleased to note that Ed describes the two main current
> conceptions of NN almost exactly as I did. (the third ' flavour' is the
> narrow technical principle which as i mentioned i have deliberately
> ignored).
> 
> (Milton,  since you said my NN typology is ' framed poorly', you may
> want to take notice)
> 
> McTim, since you forwarded this link to me, I would like to know whether
> you see NN as - using Ed's terms - an economic principle of non
> exclusive deals, or a free speech principle implying no content
> discrimination. Thats the real issue here.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>  
>>> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
>>>     
>>
>> It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
>> collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
>> parts"
>>
>>  
>>> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public
>>> interest
>>> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open,
>>> public
>>> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic
>>> in our
>>> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this
>>> reason that
>>> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we
>>> have some
>>> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by
>>> many, it
>>> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
>>> under.
>>>
>>> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
>>> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
>>> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and
>>> advocacy, we
>>> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required
>>> before we
>>> can move forward in this area..
>>>     
>>
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/
>>
>>   
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Thu Jan  8 10:01:52 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:01:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>	
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>	
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>	
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
 <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net> <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>

All,

I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net 
neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by 
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a 
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in 
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!); 
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to 
do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this 
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply 
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)

There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and 
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the 
subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting 
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for 
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I 
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate 
upon implications for the user.

I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the 
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I 
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework 
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or 
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and 
delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level, 
where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier 
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not 
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely 
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by 
packet.

This is a REAL Internet governance topic.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art00012),
>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>
>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
>I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
>XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
>manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
>How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>
>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>

-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------



-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central: 
+1.202.370.7734                     
SKYPE: sadowsky
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Jan  8 10:48:35 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:48:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
 <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net> <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>
 <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <LAu$ikyTBiZJFAmM@perry.co.uk>

In message <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>, at 10:01:52 on Thu, 8 Jan 
2009, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> writes
>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the 
>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything)

I've run two and a half [1] ISPs (the second a little over 10 years ago 
now [2]) and the answer for them all would have been "no traffic 
manipulation at all".

At the first one we used to attempt to "meter" (for the purpose of 
charging the content provider) our hosted websites, but only after 
discovering that the vast majority of the outbound web traffic was 
generated by a handful of what we might call these days dot-XXX sites. 
(No connection to Carlos's XXX operators!!!)

Perhaps we were naive, or perhaps there just wasn't the volume of 
threats and abuses that we see all around us today (most of the traffic 
manipulation I see is in response to a threat of some kind). But there 
might also be some sort of Internet threat/freedom-of-speech analogy for 
the old expression "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom 
fighter".

But our metering (not throttling) as described above, is within my own 
understanding of the scope of the Network Neutrality debate; where the 
question is whether the cost of handling the traffic in the core should 
be mainly borne by the hosting company (because they have something to 
sell, and shop-space traditionally needs to be rented from a landlord) 
or by the customer (just as they pay for their cable-TV channels) [3].

So NN is about the expectations of the people running the core regarding 
which direction their funding is coming from, and Regulators making sure 
that whatever the answer is, conforms with their local telecoms/ 
competition policy. That doesn't mean the regulator *imposing* a policy, 
because a "light touch" regulator could be prepared to allow a wide 
range of possible policies, between some hard limits at either end of 
the spectrum.

[1] The "half" was designed, but the backers ran out of money before it 
was ever deployed.

[2] Back in the days when the UK was a "developing country" as far as 
connectivity and Internet infrastructure was concerned. So I have a lot 
of sympathy for people whose experience of being an ISP and "connecting 
to the Internet" starts with signing a million-dollar lease on a line to 
New York.

[3] You get the same for mobile phones, where the USA model was 
essentially that the person receiving the call pays the "mobile premium" 
(because it's to his advantage to be able to receive calls anywhere) 
whereas in the UK the caller pays (because it's to his advantage that he 
can contact people wherever they are).
-- 
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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jan  8 12:40:43 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:40:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
 <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net>
 <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>
 <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <20090108174054.D10FEA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>

At 16:01 08/01/2009, George Sadowsky wrote:
>All,
>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net 
>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by 
>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a 
>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in 
>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!); 
>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying 
>to do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that 
>this would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or 
>simply inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)

Dear George,
I am afraid you are only partly correct. Every debate about Net 
Neutraility is pure nonsense, until one starts openly documenting 
legally, societally, technically, internationally, and politically 
(the 5 WSIS governance poles) what are:
- the Internet
- what is the "Net"
- what is "Neutrality"
- by who
- where
and everyone involved has read, fully understood and appreciated the 
positive/negative impact of RFC 3238, 3752, 3835, 3836, 3837, 3838, 
3897, 3914, 4037, 4236, 4496 and 4902.

Then and only by then one could try to evaluate if "Net Neutrality" 
differs from "Life Neutrality" and if it makes sense. Or if we want 
to talk about Net Life Quality, Protection, Ecology, Consistency, etc...

>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and 
>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the 
>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting 
>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for 
>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I 
>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not 
>concentrate upon implications for the user.

Question is not so much to dispute what we do not want, but to obtain 
what we want. This means understanding what is possible, deciding, 
and acting logically enough to obtain it.

>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what 
>the ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and 
>I would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a 
>framework that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language 
>or languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and 
>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level, 
>where there is one path to the user's computer.

This is the datacom last mile problem - another part with economy, 
multilinguistics, technology convergence, etc. of the access issue. 
Lax SSL management, lack of presentation layer, poor network usage 
architecture, confusion between the "Internet" and its many many 
"networks", etc. make all this extermely confuse. We need first to 
clarify all this new cross-subzidization issue. Locally in the US and 
for the rest of the world.

>Although higher tier ISPs have the capability to make the same 
>declaration, it's not useful to the user in that the routes 
>traversed by packets are likely to belong to multiple carriers and 
>in theory may even vary, packet by packet.
>
>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.

Yes. This is why it must be considered as an intergovernance 
multilateral issue in the context of the current financial crisis, 
economical intelligence and unrestricted warfare. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jan  8 23:06:38 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:06:38 +1100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>

I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.

But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 

Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.

The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 

So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?

Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.

So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....


Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
> Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> All,
> 
> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
> neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
> do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
> 
> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
> subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
> upon implications for the user.
> 
> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
> delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
> where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
> packet.
> 
> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
> >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
> >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
> 0012),
> >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
> >(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
> >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
> >
> >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
> >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
> >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
> >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
> >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
> >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
> >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
> >political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
> >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
> >
> >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
> >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
> >
> >frt rgds
> >
> >--c.a.
> >
> 
> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> 2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
> tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
> +1.202.370.7734
> SKYPE: sadowsky
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  8 23:55:00 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:55:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740D94@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

Ian,

To defend and clarify the historical record: proponents of the end-to-end principle like David Reed, David Clark etc were indeed putting it forward as a design principle to protect future generations of computer system users including the arpanet when that was the prime 'internet' around - reread their 'end to end' paper if you doubt that. Then other folks in the same circle (Bob Frankston says NATs are his fault) who may have agreed theoretically sought to solve specific real problems for local networks  with NATs, which violated those 1st principles.  Oh well. 

So we may agree that theory and practice may have differed from early on, but I give those folks and others full credit for being far sighted.

That doesn't clarify what language works, now, for policy principles to keep the net as open as possible.

I do agree that the Carlos - George dialog is a start in the right direction. 

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Thu 1/8/2009 11:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'
Subject: RE: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
 
I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.

But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 

Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.

The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 

So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?

Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.

So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....


Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
> Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> All,
> 
> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
> neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
> do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
> 
> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
> subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
> upon implications for the user.
> 
> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
> delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
> where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
> packet.
> 
> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
> >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
> >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
> 0012),
> >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
> >(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
> >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
> >
> >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
> >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
> >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
> >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
> >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
> >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
> >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
> >political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
> >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
> >
> >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
> >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
> >
> >frt rgds
> >
> >--c.a.
> >
> 
> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> 2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
> tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
> +1.202.370.7734
> SKYPE: sadowsky
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: 6880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090108/8cd36aa1/attachment.bin>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan  9 00:59:33 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:29:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
Message-ID: <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>

Ian

I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network 
neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle 
any longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/ 
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that 
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"

However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to 
jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand 
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN 
do understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue.

I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical 
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle, 
which in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama 
administration  is likely to  take up some legislative work on NN very 
soon - in the early messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise 
of some real change - and however much I hate a single country 
determinine global political issues, what gets decided in the 
Washington's corridors of power during this period may have an 
irreversible impact on the future of the Internet.

In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as 
how Obama himself put it

""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers 
and the various portals through which you're getting information over 
the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different 
rates to different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from 
the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and 
pop sites," he went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best 
things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible 
equality there." ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )

or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other 
a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that 
charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN.

It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of 
difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think 
the Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian 
qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the 
new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and 
advocacy that requires urgent attention.

In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort 
to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year.

parminder




Ian Peter wrote:
> I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
> IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
>
> But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
> Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
> the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
> feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
> protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
> decades ago. 
>
> Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
> Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
> dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
> use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
> end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
> not what it's all about.
>
> The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
> perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
> qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
> we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
> architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
> network management issues rather than user issues. 
>
> So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
> we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
>
> Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
> tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
> them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
> there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
> in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
>
> So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
> there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
> don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
>
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>  
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
>> Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>> neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>> do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>
>> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>> subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>> upon implications for the user.
>>
>> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>> delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>> where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>> packet.
>>
>> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> George
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>     
>>> Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>> the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>> (unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
>>>       
>> 0012),
>>     
>>> which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>> (www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
>>> PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>
>>> In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>> if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
>>> I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
>>> XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
>>> manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
>>> How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
>>> thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>> political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>> brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>
>>> However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>> NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>>       
>> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>> 2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
>> Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
>> tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
>> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
>> +1.202.370.7734
>> SKYPE: sadowsky
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/dae9300d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 01:19:39 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:49:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
Message-ID: <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
> IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
>
> But I have the same trouble with net neutrality


I said something as an intervention at the Net Neutrality session during
IGF, paneled by participants from the Diplo Foundation, which I with to
bring up in the list in this context.

*It is important to ensure that the Internet does not discriminate between
traffic from out of India and traffic from Pakistan, or does not
discriminate between a computer with Windows and a computer with Fedora or
Solaris. There are several other aspects of Net Neutrality that combine
together to make this an important cause but I want to bring up an
observation that Network Neutrality debates are emotional.

As an emotional topic, the phrase Network Neutrality tends to stretch as a
broader and broader theme to include just about everything. And everything
is opposed in the name of Net Neutrality. *



> as I do with end to end.
> Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
> the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
> feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
> protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses
> foreseen
> decades ago.
>
> Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
> Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
> dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
> use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
> end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
> not what it's all about.
>
> The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
> perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
> qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
> we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
> architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
> network management issues rather than user issues.


*Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain
context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what
is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?  The emotional point
of view would assert that both Virginia and Robert are charged equally, with
the result that Virginia subsidizes Robert by $40 which is unfair. This
aspect of Net Neutrality could be unfair to the user, for example.  [ Robert
responded by saying that he would like to pay a $100 ]

I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total
commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's hat and
ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure provider if you
insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and Robert? I don't have $80 to
subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my investments? How will I survive? More
important, how will I prosper? *


> So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
> we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
>
> Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
> tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown
> at
> them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
> there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
> in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
>
> So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
> there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
> don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....


*[Is there] a business model to show me if I were a telecom or an ISP that
is convincing as a sort of Google-like business model that would work to
help [a business] make billions as a Net Neutral business corporation? Why
don't we write a  universal business plan for telecoms and ISPs and other
network players to show alternate and innovative business models that would
help corporations to survive and grow as Network Neutral enterprises?  *

>
>
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> > Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> > Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
> > Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
> > neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
> > ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
> > government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
> > the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
> > and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
> > do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
> > would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
> > inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
> >
> > There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
> > there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
> > subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
> > definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
> > users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
> > agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
> > upon implications for the user.
> >
> > I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
> > ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
> > would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
> > that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
> > languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
> > delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
> > where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
> > ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
> > useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
> > to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
> > packet.
> >
> > This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~
> >
> >
> >
> > At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
> > >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
> > >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
> > >
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
> > 0012),
> > >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
> > >(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download
> the
> > >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
> > >
> > >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
> > >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
> > >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
> > >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
> > >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
> > >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
> > >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
> > >political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
> > >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
> > >
> > >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
> > >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
> > >
> > >frt rgds
> > >
> > >--c.a.
> > >
> >
> > -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> > 2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> > Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
> > tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> > Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
> > +1.202.370.7734
> > SKYPE: sadowsky
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/fa9ad923/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ginger at paque.net  Fri Jan  9 04:46:31 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:16:31 -0430
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <002301c9723f$27d90550$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

 

"So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it 'what are the desirable
network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express
them another way?'"

 

"However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not
want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue." (end
quote)

 

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle
and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference
such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The
same "brand image and mass behind" the term allow it to be dismissed with
allegations of "that's not what NN means" if we are not precise.

 

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the
statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we
do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We
could do this by outlining the importance of a rights-based framework with a
specific reference to support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN
:-) -- and a practical emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and
inclusion enhanced remote participation.

 

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

 

 

 

  _____  

De: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 09 de Enero de 2009 01:30 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
CC: 'George Sadowsky'
Asunto: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality

 

Ian

I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network
neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle any
longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that we
are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"

However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to
jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image
and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue. 

I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle, which
in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama administration  is
likely to  take up some legislative work on NN very soon - in the early
messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise of some real change -
and however much I hate a single country determinine global political
issues, what gets decided in the Washington's corridors of power during this
period may have an irreversible impact on the future of the Internet. 

In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as how
Obama himself put it

""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and
the various portals through which you're getting information over the
Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to
different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News
site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he
went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the
Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there." (
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )

or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other a
close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that charging
content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN. 

It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think the
Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will
be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the new US
administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that
requires urgent attention. 

In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort to
see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year. 

parminder 




Ian Peter wrote: 

I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
 
But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 
 
Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.
 
The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 
 
So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
 
Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
 
So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
 
 
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
 
All,
 
I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
 
There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
upon implications for the user.
 
I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
packet.
 
This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
 
Regards,
 
George
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
 
 
 
At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
    

Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
      

0012),
    

which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
 
In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
 
However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
 
frt rgds
 
--c.a.
 
      

-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
 
 
 
--
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
+1.202.370.7734
SKYPE: sadowsky
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
    

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/2c4f3689/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ginger at paque.net  Fri Jan  9 04:58:05 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:28:05 -0430
Subject: RV: [governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised
Message-ID: <002e01c97240$c6072440$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

This is a slightly revised version of the email I just sent, after reading
Parminder's post to the BOR list. Changes are in all caps for ease of
reading.

 

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

 

"So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it 'what are the desirable
network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express
them another way?'"

 

"However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not
want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue." (end
quote)

 

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle
and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference
such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The
same "brand image and mass behind" the term allow it to be dismissed with
allegations of "that's not what NN means" if we are not precise.

 

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the
statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we
do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We
could do this by outlining the importance of a [REMOVE: rights]
RESPONSIBILITY or PRINCIPLES-based framework with a specific reference to
support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN  :-) -- and a practical
emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and inclusion enhanced remote
participation.

 

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

 

 

 

 

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

 

"So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it 'what are the desirable
network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express
them another way?'"

 

"However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not
want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue." (end
quote)

 

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle
and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference
such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The
same "brand image and mass behind" the term allow it to be dismissed with
allegations of "that's not what NN means" if we are not precise.

 

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the
statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we
do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We
could do this by outlining the importance of a rights-based framework with a
specific reference to support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN
:-) -- and a practical emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and
inclusion enhanced remote participation.

 

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

 

 

 

  _____  

De: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 09 de Enero de 2009 01:30 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
CC: 'George Sadowsky'
Asunto: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality

 

Ian

I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network
neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle any
longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that we
are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"

However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to
jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image
and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue. 

I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle, which
in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama administration  is
likely to  take up some legislative work on NN very soon - in the early
messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise of some real change -
and however much I hate a single country determinine global political
issues, what gets decided in the Washington's corridors of power during this
period may have an irreversible impact on the future of the Internet. 

In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as how
Obama himself put it

""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and
the various portals through which you're getting information over the
Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to
different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News
site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he
went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the
Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there." (
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )

or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other a
close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that charging
content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN. 

It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think the
Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will
be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the new US
administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that
requires urgent attention. 

In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort to
see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year. 

parminder 




Ian Peter wrote: 

I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
 
But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 
 
Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.
 
The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 
 
So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
 
Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
 
So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
 
 
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
 
All,
 
I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
 
There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
upon implications for the user.
 
I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
packet.
 
This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
 
Regards,
 
George
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
 
 
 
At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
    

Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
      

0012),
    

which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
 
In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
 
However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
 
frt rgds
 
--c.a.
 
      

-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
 
 
 
--
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
+1.202.370.7734
SKYPE: sadowsky
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
    

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/dd2fd1e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  9 05:23:36 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:23:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2> <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029@ras.eu.org>


Le 9 janv. 09 à 07:19, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy a écrit :

>
> Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the  
> concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the  
> 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a  
> certain context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business  
> email and essential surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it  
> to download movies 24/7, what is wrong if Virginia is charged $10  
> and Robert a $100?  The emotional point of view would assert that  
> both Virginia and Robert are charged equally, with the result that  
> Virginia subsidizes Robert by $40 which is unfair. This aspect of  
> Net Neutrality could be unfair to the user, for example.  [ Robert  
> responded by saying that he would like to pay a $100 ]
>
> I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a  
> total commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the  
> businessman's hat and ask you how I would survive as an ISP or  
> Infrastructure provider if you insist on me charging $10 each for  
> Virginia and Robert? I don't have $80 to subsidize Robert. How will  
> I recoup my investments? How will I survive? More important, how  
> will I prosper?

Do I understand it right that you're advocating against flat access  
rates for ISP subscrivers, and in favor of a usage-based pricing  
system, i.e. back to the old dial-up times system?
Note that, in any case, this is different from the net neutrality  
issue, whatever way the concept is framed.

Meryem Marzouki____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jan  9 07:57:44 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:57:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
Message-ID: <20090109055744.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.6fc9e29d9a.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/049c43c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan  9 08:13:35 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:43:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49674D7F.6040307@itforchange.net>

Shiva

 >/ does not discriminate between a computer with Windows and a computer 
with Fedora or Solaris.

/This is an important aspect of neutrality or non-discrimination in all 
digital systems, as also on and regarding the Internet. But it is most 
likely that in the same way that IBM and later Microsoft has been forced 
to unbundle its offerings and be neutral and non-discriminating to other 
digital products, regular pro-competition regulation and policies will 
ensure this as well. Not that we would not need to fight for it at all, 
but what I am asserting here is that this danger is not peculiar to the 
Internet.

Conflating this above issue with NN completely, or even largely, has the 
problem of taking attention away from what I see is the the main problem 
associated with NN, which is unique and structural to the Internet, and 
which if ignored will forever structurally deform the Internet into 
something that will belie the democratic potential of the Internet. This 
is the issue of tiered Internet, where content providers are charged 
differentially  for different treatment vis a vis delivery and 
transmission, and not merely access.

/>If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential 
surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, 
what is wrong if >Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?
/
As Meryem pointed out, charging access, whether flat rate or per-use, 
has nothing to do with the concept of Network neutrality. Cost of pipe 
size is not the issue here, cost of differential  speed and quality of 
transmission is. The impact  of these two  things is structurally very 
(hugely!) different on what the Internet will get shaped into. The 
distinction between the two lies at the base of NN concept, as it is 
being advocated.

Parminder

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>     I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing
>     discussion with
>     IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
>
>     But I have the same trouble with net neutrality 
>
>
> I said something as an intervention at the Net Neutrality session 
> during IGF, paneled by participants from the Diplo Foundation, which I 
> with to bring up in the list in this context.
>
> /It is important to ensure that the Internet does not discriminate 
> between traffic from out of India and traffic from Pakistan, or does 
> not discriminate between a computer with Windows and a computer with 
> Fedora or Solaris. There are several other aspects of Net Neutrality 
> that combine together to make this an important cause but I want to 
> bring up an observation that Network Neutrality debates are emotional.
>
> As an emotional topic, the phrase Network Neutrality tends to stretch 
> as a broader and broader theme to include just about everything. And 
> everything is opposed in the name of Net Neutrality. /
>
>  
>
>     as I do with end to end.
>     Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that
>     guarantees
>     the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was
>     more a
>     feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent
>     design to
>     protect future generations of internet users from a range of
>     abuses foreseen
>     decades ago.
>
>     Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the
>     future
>     Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In
>     fact, as
>     dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and
>     it's of no
>     use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach
>     of end to
>     end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all
>     such. It's
>     not what it's all about.
>
>     The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
>     perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet
>     possesses certain
>     qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it
>     is. I think
>     we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
>     architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as
>     carrier and
>     network management issues rather than user issues.
>
>
> /Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the 
> concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the 
> 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a 
> certain context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email 
> and essential surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to 
> download movies 24/7, what is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and 
> Robert a $100?  The emotional point of view would assert that both 
> Virginia and Robert are charged equally, with the result that Virginia 
> subsidizes Robert by $40 which is unfair. This aspect of Net 
> Neutrality could be unfair to the user, for example.  [ Robert 
> responded by saying that he would like to pay a $100 ]
>
> I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total 
> commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's 
> hat and ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure 
> provider if you insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and 
> Robert? I don't have $80 to subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my 
> investments? How will I survive? More important, how will I prosper? /
>
>
>     So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network
>     qualities that
>     we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
>
>     Some better language might help us to get better results.
>     Governments will
>     tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are
>     thrown at
>     them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of
>     meanings
>     there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can
>     point out
>     in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
>
>     So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to
>     point out
>     there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject.
>     But I
>     don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
>
>
> /[Is there] a business model to show me if I were a telecom or an ISP 
> that is convincing as a sort of Google-like business model that would 
> work to help [a business] make billions as a Net Neutral business 
> corporation? Why don't we write a  universal business plan for 
> telecoms and ISPs and other network players to show alternate and 
> innovative business models that would help corporations to survive and 
> grow as Network Neutral enterprises?  /
>
>
>
>
>     Ian Peter
>     PO Box 429
>     Bangalow NSW 2479
>     Australia
>     Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>     www.ianpeter.com <http://www.ianpeter.com>
>
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
>     <mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>]
>     > Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
>     > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>     > Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
>     > Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>
>     > Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>     >
>     > All,
>     >
>     > I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>     > neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>     > ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>     > government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>     > the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>     > and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are
>     trying to
>     > do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that
>     this
>     > would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>     > inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>     >
>     > There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>     > there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>     > subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>     > definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>     > users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>     > agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not
>     concentrate
>     > upon implications for the user.
>     >
>     > I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of
>     what the
>     > ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>     > would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a
>     framework
>     > that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>     > languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>     > delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>     > where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher
>     tier
>     > ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>     > useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are
>     likely
>     > to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary,
>     packet by
>     > packet.
>     >
>     > This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > George
>     >
>     >
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     > ~
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>     > >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex
>     analyses under
>     > >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>     > >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>     >
>     >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
>     > 0012),
>     > >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>     > >(www.politics.org.br <http://www.politics.org.br>). If you can
>     manage Portuguese, please download the
>     > >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>     > >
>     > >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I
>     feel most
>     > >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>     consideration.
>     > >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>     country using
>     > >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal
>     packet
>     > >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is
>     happening.
>     > >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles
>     (or lack
>     > >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation,
>     what
>     > >political involvement I should consider to change this
>     (thinking of the
>     > >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>     > >
>     > >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in
>     considering
>     > >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic
>     for IGF.
>     > >
>     > >frt rgds
>     > >
>     > >--c.a.
>     > >
>     >
>     > -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     >
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     > George Sadowsky                            
>      george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
>     > 2182 Birch Way                          
>     george.sadowsky at attglobal.net <mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>
>     > Woodstock, VT  05091-8155              
>     http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
>     > tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile:
>     +1.202.415.1933
>     > Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
>     > +1.202.370.7734
>     > SKYPE: sadowsky
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     >      governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >
>     > For all list information and functions, see:
>     >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://twitter.com/isocchennai
> http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
> http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/a834d5a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 08:58:55 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:28:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029@ras.eu.org>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce260901090558u4fcbde6aocbb8a97e36054150@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Meryem Marzouki,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:

>
> Le 9 janv. 09 à 07:19, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy a écrit :
>
>
>> Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
>> concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
>> 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain
>> context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
>> surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what
>> is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?  The emotional point
>> of view would assert that both Virginia and Robert are charged equally, with
>> the result that Virginia subsidizes Robert by $40 which is unfair. This
>> aspect of Net Neutrality could be unfair to the user, for example.  [ Robert
>> responded by saying that he would like to pay a $100 ]
>>
>> I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total
>> commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's hat and
>> ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure provider if you
>> insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and Robert? I don't have $80 to
>> subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my investments? How will I survive? More
>> important, how will I prosper?
>>
>
> Do I understand it right that you're advocating against flat access rates
> for ISP subscrivers, and in favor of a usage-based pricing system, i.e. back
> to the old dial-up times system?
> Note that, in any case, this is different from the net neutrality issue,
> whatever way the concept is framed.


I said that in the context of "*As an emotional topic, the phrase Network
Neutrality tends to stretch as a broader and broader theme to include just
about everything. And everything is opposed in the name of Net Neutrality."
*
In that context I was pointing out that some Network Neutrality proponents
tend to oppose variable pricing by bandwidth providers. The old dialup based
pricing system wherein we paid by the minute (not unlike the telecom model)
is unfair, but it is also true that a blind flat rate which results in the
non-user subsidizing the real user is unfair.

Differential pricing need not take us back to the dial up, pay by the minute
system, even the unlimited usage plans could be clustered to group users who
require 256 Kbps and those who require 10 Mbps. I felt that there is nothing
wrong with that.

Civil Society as a stakeholder does not consider that Business as a
stakeholder and Government as a stakeholder is evil. Multi stakeholderism
wouldn't work if one stakeholder group is completely closed to the the
concerns of the other groups. I was trying to think along the concerns of
Business as a stakeholder on one of the deviations in some Net Neutrality's
debates.

Thank you





>
>
> Meryem Marzouki____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/e3b3373a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jan  9 10:46:47 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:46:47 +0000
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029@ras.eu.org>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
 <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <6bzD0zJnF3ZJFAxF@perry.co.uk>

In message <64015215-30A1-46EE-B7E4-D191AFD88029 at ras.eu.org>, at 
11:23:36 on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 
writes
>> I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total 
>>commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's 
>>hat and ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure 
>>provider if you insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and 
>>Robert? I don't have $80 to subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my 
>>investments? How will I survive? More important, how will I prosper?
>
>Do I understand it right that you're advocating against flat access 
>rates for ISP subscrivers, and in favor of a usage-based pricing 
>system, i.e. back to the old dial-up times system?

I can choose to spend (equivalent) $15 a month for 3G wireless broadband 
capped at 1GByte, or $30 for 10Gbyte. Do you think different caps like 
that are in some sense "wrong"?

Meanwhile, don't knock dial-up; I just spent a week on holiday (in the 
UK!) where the only Internet access available was at 9.6K bits per 
second on my mobile phone over dial-up. That cost me around $50 for 
approx 20 Megabytes. Only 1,000x the price of the 3G broadband I could 
have been using ten miles to the west.

>Note that, in any case, this is different from the net neutrality 
>issue, whatever way the concept is framed.

It's also more about "universal access" (where "universal" here means 
everyone being given access at the same price, regardless of the cost of 
supplying it).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jan  9 12:26:26 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:26:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder:

> It is my humble opinion that between these two positions
> lies a world of difference, and the real battle will be situated
> in this space. I think the Internet as we know  - and as we
> cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will be history if Lessig's
> version of NN is adopted by the new US administration.
> This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that
> requires urgent attention.

I am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications, which is the _only_ thing important about NN, and elevate the economic equality argument (no one should be able to pay more for better service), which is unimportant to ordinary people and ultimately is impossible to achieve.

You say that the content and application discrimination issues "are easy to achieve" and "dont matter much." Let me give you a very simple example of why you are mistaken: VoIP.

In many developing countries, and in quite a few developing countries, the telco has monopoly power and can use it to prevent Internet users from using voice over IP as a substitute for their overpriced telephone service. Imagine then two mobile phone providers. One is NN compliant - you can use VoIP as a substitute for traditional mobile voice service. The other is not, it forces you to use _their_ service and accordingly charges high prices for regular, and especially international and roaming service. We are talking dollars per minute rather than pennies per minute. The amount of surplus profit or revenue generated by the second mobile ISP is, cumulatively, enormous, billions of dollars across the globe. It affects the affordability of service, and the consumers ability to choose qualities, modes and applications that they want. It affects the ability of new companies to enter the market, with all that that implies for innovation and competition.

I have made a simple case for large benefits caused by the correct conception of NN. Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want to pay more for a higher speed or better service they can't do it, even if it is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis? Tell us all how leveling down the market to the lowest common denominator enhances the public good.

Take the same logic to content discrimination. You blithely dismiss the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say, "we don't like this web site or that service, we are just going to block it." Doesn't matter? Wow. That need for liberty of choice and openness is fundamental to the value the internet delivers. By comparison, the equality of price and service you propose is meaningless. Who cares whether i get the same price and service as everyone else, when the content and applications delivered are censorsed and strangled and suppressed?

Do you argue that no one should be able to buy DSL service because there are people who have dial up and can't afford DSL? sounds to me like that's the basis of your argument. absurd. this is not an NN argument it's an economic egalitarian argument. NN isn;t about that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/2bc0d310/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jan  9 12:36:09 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:36:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



________________________________
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?

Siva, there is nothing wrong, indeed, a pricing regime that charges users more based on what bandwidth they actually use is scientifically known to be better for smaller users, who end up subsidizing bandwidth hogs under many flat-rate regimes. If you care about affordability you want price discrimination in this sense.

The main point I want to make is that charging more for more bandwidth use is NOT a net neutrality issue at all. This is unfortunately how the economic equalitarians have diverted and potentially destroyed the concept. NN has to do with anti-competitive or censorial discrimination among applications, services or content based on the origin or destination of the packets. Full stop.

We need to liberate the NN discussion from the efforts of economic equalitarians to appropriate the term in order to sell Maoist snake oil. Economic equalitarianism of the sort that says Virginia and Robert should get the same price for very different services and consumption rates is just plain dumb; it isn;t economically sustainable, and won't survive as a political or regulatory movement. So linking NN to this is a sure way to defeat it -- as the IGP paper warned over a year ago.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/1dd716c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Fri Jan  9 12:47:46 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:47:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Parminder schrieb:
> the real task/
> question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that
> we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"
Very much so.

But:

> I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
> issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle,
I am afraid we can't distinguish these two. This is a clear example of
geeky technicalities making huge differences in political terms and vice
versa.

> In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as
> how Obama himself put it
> 
> ""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers
> and the various portals through which you're getting information over
> the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different
> rates to different Web sites...
This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see (except for the fact
that Fox of course can rent a faster server and uplink than mom and pop,
but this is beyond discussion). The recent "Google breaking NN"
irritations stirred by the poor media coverage were about edge caching,
which has nothing to do with this.

As has been discussed here, the real NN debate and non-NN practices as far
as I can tell are now more about the ISPs as access providers for
end-users throttling or fast-tracking special content such as p2p or voip,
and of course about "filtering" etc. But again, there have always been QoS
protocols and related things, so it is all a bit more complicated.

> or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other
> a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that
> charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN.
Lessig himself has the correct version:

<http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html>
It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network
providers should be free to charge different rates for different service
-- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price
is available to anyone willing to pay it."

-> See above, mom and pop vs. Fox, nothing new.

> It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
> difference, 
There does not seem to be much difference between a misunderstood Obama
and the quoted Lessig. Read the Lessig post above for more.

> and the real battle will be situated in this space.
Well... no. ;-)

> I think
> the Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian
> qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the
> new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and
> advocacy that requires urgent attention.
...and understanding, one may want to add. ;-) SCNR

> In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort
> to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year.
It seems to me we need much more discussion amongst ourselves first.

But of course, a draft paper would help facilitate that, as Ginger has
suggested.

A good start by the way is Milton's paper from the GigaNet Symposium 2007
(not sure if it has been mentioned so far):
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf>

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Fri Jan  9 12:53:07 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:53:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <49678F03.8010503@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Ralf Bendrath schrieb:
> It seems to me we need much more discussion amongst ourselves first.

PS: It would be good to get these folks involed in any plans / panels or
whatever around "NN" at the next IGF. I also recommend their list for
anybody wanting to follow the NN discussions more closely:

<http://www.nnsquad.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  Fri Jan  9 12:54:20 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:54:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: What is Network Neutrality - was;  a very
In-Reply-To: <506EE01B-7FEA-4CCD-9628-8A9C69921E84@acm.org>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
 <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <506EE01B-7FEA-4CCD-9628-8A9C69921E84@acm.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF13@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
>
> but as i have always understood it , the best effort Internet was
> indeed egalitarian with the exception or routing updates.  so why is
> it ok, for the best effort Internet to cease offering equal best
> effort for everyone and for all content?
>

I distinguish between economic equalitarianism and technical best-effort. technical best effort simply means that the routers perform in a predictable and standardized way. within those standards there is, and always has been, room for investments or services that improve performance, right? Buy more bandwidth. Buy faster servers. Use Akamai or edge caching.

Flat rate pricing is a free market phenomenon, consumers chose it over other kinds of rate structures in most cases because they preferred the certainty of what they would pay each month. likewise, mobile phone rates in the US grativated toward tiered flat rates, with large bundles of minutes for a simple rate, rather than a per call basis. But the rates are tiered, and you pay more for bigger bundles of minutes. We could go to somethig like this on Internet pricing.

Flat rate pricing insofar as it emerges from market forces is not an imposed egalitarianism but simply a rational bargain between consumer and end user. (there is a large economic literature on this, btw, going back to the telephone rates of the 1890s-early 1900s)  However, the greater diversity of internet traffic can cause that bargain to break down. I think ISPs will probably need to find a way to distinguish between the pricing charged someone who consumes 100Gb of bandwidth a month and someone who consumes 2 Gb. However, it is also possible that the transaction costs associated with such dfferentiation are high; if they are too high it may be more efficient to just build more b/w and offer it indiscriminately. That is why you need competitive markets, to sort out these kinmds of things. you don;t set prices based on a priori principles.

--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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Jan  9 09:10:12 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:10:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20090109181611.7DD9FE1B93@smtp3.electricembers.net>

Dear Parminder,
this:
At 06:59 09/01/2009, Parminder wrote:
>I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical issues,

may explains that:

>... rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he went on. "And 
>that I think destroys one of the best things about the 
>Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there"

- The worst about the Internet is its incredible equality based upon 
such an equally rotten quality.
- Technically, net neurtrality is that the same information unit 
(bit) is always sent end to end at the same rate, speed, reliability 
and quality of service.

Now please tell how you conciliate the best-effort basis of the 
Internet technology and the user's best-service expectation in an 
unperfect Internet world. Lessig says the good/bad constitution is in 
the source code. The source code is defined by the RFC. When the 
people who write RFCs say they have no civil right background nor 
much interest in civil right issues, don't the are only a few chances 
they build what you want.
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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 13:34:59 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:04:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <fecfce260901091034lefc2a63mc8d96606cefabe6d@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Milton Mueller,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
>  *Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
> concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
> 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain
> context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
> surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what
> is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?  *
>
> Siva, there is nothing wrong, indeed, a pricing regime that charges users
> more based on what bandwidth they actually use is scientifically known to be
> better for smaller users, who end up subsidizing bandwidth hogs under many
> flat-rate regimes. If you care about affordability you want price
> discrimination in this sense.
>
> The main point I want to make is that charging more for more bandwidth use
> is NOT a net neutrality issue at all. This is unfortunately how the economic
> equalitarians have diverted and potentially destroyed the concept. NN has to
> do with anti-competitive or censorial discrimination among applications,
> services or content based on the origin or destination of the packets. Full
> stop.
>
> We need to liberate the NN discussion from the efforts of economic
> equalitarians to appropriate the term in order to sell Maoist snake oil.
> Economic equalitarianism of the sort that says Virginia and Robert should
> get the same price for very different services and consumption rates is just
> plain dumb; it isn;t economically sustainable, and won't survive as a
> political or regulatory movement. So linking NN to this is a sure way to
> defeat it -- as the IGP paper warned over a year ago.
>
>
Your paper spells out clearly what net neutrality is not. Will take the time
to go through that in detail.  It is important that we at this Caucus
defines what Net Neutrality is and then steers all discussions of Net
Neutrality around the core aspects of Net Neutrality.

I agree with you fully on this. As I said, this is what I set out to say at
the NN debate, and in the context of pointing out a distraction I made an
observation about permissible commercial practices, which are issues beyond
the purview of NN anyway.

Thanks.
-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/

>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>


<http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090110/1135dbdf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan  9 14:52:16 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:52:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2><136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN><fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <fecfce260901091034lefc2a63mc8d96606cefabe6d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740D9E@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

I've bee biting my tongue for a while now, since as some of you may recall I have objected to the incredibly vacuous term 'network neutrality' since before it became a buzzword.  (Partially because it was some of my former students who popularized the term initially - you see  I taught them too well.)  

I do admit that the old 'common carriage' term used to describe non-discriminatory treatment of people crossing bridges, using ferries, or riding trains has always been a favorite of mine, but may feel a bit outdated when speaking of the Internet. But the emotion in the NN debate comes partially from folks knowing it is just not right to treat people or packets otherwise.

And I do agree with this quote from one of Milton's messages:

'nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications...is the _only_ thing important' (about NN)

However, as Milton and others note the word 'discrimination' doesn't sound particularly appealing since forms other than price discrimination are social evils, and even in the pricing case noone like paying a higher price. Hence I prefer 'open.' Which is vague too I concede but has the right connotation.

So if we can agree that 'open and universal access' is the real objective, then let's focus on specifying what that means in the Carlos/George context.

Lee.

PS: My big concession: if igc can define NN as 'open and universal Internet access,' then I'll try to control my gag reflex every time I hear the NN term. Maybe there's something I can take for that...


-----Original Message-----
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 1/9/2009 1:34 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
 
Hello Milton Mueller,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
>  *Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
> concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
> 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain
> context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
> surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what
> is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?  *
>
> Siva, there is nothing wrong, indeed, a pricing regime that charges users
> more based on what bandwidth they actually use is scientifically known to be
> better for smaller users, who end up subsidizing bandwidth hogs under many
> flat-rate regimes. If you care about affordability you want price
> discrimination in this sense.
>
> The main point I want to make is that charging more for more bandwidth use
> is NOT a net neutrality issue at all. This is unfortunately how the economic
> equalitarians have diverted and potentially destroyed the concept. NN has to
> do with anti-competitive or censorial discrimination among applications,
> services or content based on the origin or destination of the packets. Full
> stop.
>
> We need to liberate the NN discussion from the efforts of economic
> equalitarians to appropriate the term in order to sell Maoist snake oil.
> Economic equalitarianism of the sort that says Virginia and Robert should
> get the same price for very different services and consumption rates is just
> plain dumb; it isn;t economically sustainable, and won't survive as a
> political or regulatory movement. So linking NN to this is a sure way to
> defeat it -- as the IGP paper warned over a year ago.
>
>
Your paper spells out clearly what net neutrality is not. Will take the time
to go through that in detail.  It is important that we at this Caucus
defines what Net Neutrality is and then steers all discussions of Net
Neutrality around the core aspects of Net Neutrality.

I agree with you fully on this. As I said, this is what I set out to say at
the NN debate, and in the context of pointing out a distraction I made an
observation about permissible commercial practices, which are issues beyond
the purview of NN anyway.

Thanks.
-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/

>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>


<http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: 5448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/a26421d6/attachment.bin>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jan  9 15:32:46 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:32:46 +1100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740D9E@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0CD0B68825B14421953C370E72CBEEA4@IAN>

I'd like to explore Lee's definition in the context of Ginger's call for us
to define our field -

Can we agree that network neutrality be defined for our purposes as open and
universal Internet access, as Lee suggests? We might have to refine that a
little.....maybe "the debate around open and universal Internet access,
often known as the net neutrality debate" 

Or,

Can we move forward in the context of IGF to suggest inclusion of "net
neutrality, specifically where it addresses questions of open and universal
access" - or something similar?

Or "open and universal access" as the theme, including relevant NN debates?




Ian Peter

PS Just as others have done I would suggest separating pricing debates
altogether from this discussion. In Australia volume based plans have been
around for years, I am sure other countries do so as well. It's not quite a
global issue and its not an NN issue



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: 10 January 2009 06:52
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Ian Peter
> Subject: RE: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> I've bee biting my tongue for a while now, since as some of you may recall
> I have objected to the incredibly vacuous term 'network neutrality' since
> before it became a buzzword.  (Partially because it was some of my former
> students who popularized the term initially - you see  I taught them too
> well.)
> 
> I do admit that the old 'common carriage' term used to describe non-
> discriminatory treatment of people crossing bridges, using ferries, or
> riding trains has always been a favorite of mine, but may feel a bit
> outdated when speaking of the Internet. But the emotion in the NN debate
> comes partially from folks knowing it is just not right to treat people or
> packets otherwise.
> 
> And I do agree with this quote from one of Milton's messages:
> 
> 'nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications...is
> the _only_ thing important' (about NN)
> 
> However, as Milton and others note the word 'discrimination' doesn't sound
> particularly appealing since forms other than price discrimination are
> social evils, and even in the pricing case noone like paying a higher
> price. Hence I prefer 'open.' Which is vague too I concede but has the
> right connotation.
> 
> So if we can agree that 'open and universal access' is the real objective,
> then let's focus on specifying what that means in the Carlos/George
> context.
> 
> Lee.
> 
> PS: My big concession: if igc can define NN as 'open and universal
> Internet access,' then I'll try to control my gag reflex every time I hear
> the NN term. Maybe there's something I can take for that...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 1/9/2009 1:34 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> Hello Milton Mueller,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> >  *Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
> > concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
> > 'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a
> certain
> > context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and
> essential
> > surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7,
> what
> > is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100?  *
> >
> > Siva, there is nothing wrong, indeed, a pricing regime that charges
> users
> > more based on what bandwidth they actually use is scientifically known
> to be
> > better for smaller users, who end up subsidizing bandwidth hogs under
> many
> > flat-rate regimes. If you care about affordability you want price
> > discrimination in this sense.
> >
> > The main point I want to make is that charging more for more bandwidth
> use
> > is NOT a net neutrality issue at all. This is unfortunately how the
> economic
> > equalitarians have diverted and potentially destroyed the concept. NN
> has to
> > do with anti-competitive or censorial discrimination among applications,
> > services or content based on the origin or destination of the packets.
> Full
> > stop.
> >
> > We need to liberate the NN discussion from the efforts of economic
> > equalitarians to appropriate the term in order to sell Maoist snake oil.
> > Economic equalitarianism of the sort that says Virginia and Robert
> should
> > get the same price for very different services and consumption rates is
> just
> > plain dumb; it isn;t economically sustainable, and won't survive as a
> > political or regulatory movement. So linking NN to this is a sure way to
> > defeat it -- as the IGP paper warned over a year ago.
> >
> >
> Your paper spells out clearly what net neutrality is not. Will take the
> time
> to go through that in detail.  It is important that we at this Caucus
> defines what Net Neutrality is and then steers all discussions of Net
> Neutrality around the core aspects of Net Neutrality.
> 
> I agree with you fully on this. As I said, this is what I set out to say
> at
> the NN debate, and in the context of pointing out a distraction I made an
> observation about permissible commercial practices, which are issues
> beyond
> the purview of NN anyway.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://twitter.com/isocchennai
> http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
> http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
> 
> >
> >
> > Milton Mueller
> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> > ------------------------------
> > Internet Governance Project:
> > http://internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> <http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jan  9 16:40:23 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:40:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260901091034lefc2a63mc8d96606cefabe6d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <fecfce260901091034lefc2a63mc8d96606cefabe6d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



________________________________
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Your paper spells out clearly what net neutrality is not. Will take the time to go through that in detail.  It is important that we at this Caucus defines what Net Neutrality is and then steers all discussions of Net Neutrality around the core aspects of Net Neutrality.

It also spells out what it is: a commiment by bandwidth suppliers to provide nondiscriminatory access to content, applications and services; and a commitment by governments to not use the network (ISPs) to block or filter content they don't like.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/7d0f658c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 00:28:07 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:58:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>

Ralf

I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.

You seem to say that there is *no* (or little) difference between 
positions of Obama and Lessig as shows from their recent statements that 
I quoted.

" (no one) should be able to ...... charge different rates to different 
Web sites" (Obama)

"network providers should be free to charge different rates for 
different services long as the faster service at a higher price is 
available to anyone willing to pay it."  (Lessig)

Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ? I may be missing something 
here in which case pl enlighten me.

At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama 
speaks against a tiered internet, but your position here is that this is 
no longer a relevant issue.

 > This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see.

I state with all sincerity that if I can be persuaded that this angle - 
of the possibility  of a tiered Internet - is 'pretty much over'  I will 
leave this discussion, and save both the IGC's and my time. For 
instance, can we have Milton, who seems to be on your side of the debate 
at this point, say that  'this angle is pretty much over'. It will be 
simple if it were over - we are all, in any case, against 
anti-competitive practices, we are all for transparency, and we are all 
against censorship. No dispute here. Problem solved.

But, why Lessig, a known social activist, and someone who is politically 
quite astute, and rumored to have some political ambitions, will want to 
publicly state this above position accepting a 'tiered Internet'  - 
especially when his word seems to be valued by the incoming US 
administration ??

Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet 
content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the 
network." ( 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html 
). I cannot at all see how his 2006 position (also expressed in his 2006 
testimony to FCC) is not different from his above 2008 position. Why do 
you think he changed his position in this manner, when as you say 'this 
angle is pretty much over...".

Simple, because 'this angle' (of a tiered Internet) is *now* even more in.

Parminder

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>> the real task/
>> question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that
>> we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"
>>     
> Very much so.
>
> But:
>
>   
>> I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
>> issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle,
>>     
> I am afraid we can't distinguish these two. This is a clear example of
> geeky technicalities making huge differences in political terms and vice
> versa.
>
>   
>> In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as
>> how Obama himself put it
>>
>> ""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers
>> and the various portals through which you're getting information over
>> the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different
>> rates to different Web sites...
>>     
> This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see (except for the fact
> that Fox of course can rent a faster server and uplink than mom and pop,
> but this is beyond discussion). The recent "Google breaking NN"
> irritations stirred by the poor media coverage were about edge caching,
> which has nothing to do with this.
>
> As has been discussed here, the real NN debate and non-NN practices as far
> as I can tell are now more about the ISPs as access providers for
> end-users throttling or fast-tracking special content such as p2p or voip,
> and of course about "filtering" etc. But again, there have always been QoS
> protocols and related things, so it is all a bit more complicated.
>
>   
>> or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other
>> a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that
>> charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN.
>>     
> Lessig himself has the correct version:
>
> <http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html>
> It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network
> providers should be free to charge different rates for different service
> -- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price
> is available to anyone willing to pay it."
>
> -> See above, mom and pop vs. Fox, nothing new.
>
>   
>> It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
>> difference, 
>>     
> There does not seem to be much difference between a misunderstood Obama
> and the quoted Lessig. Read the Lessig post above for more.
>
>   
>> and the real battle will be situated in this space.
>>     
> Well... no. ;-)
>
>   
>> I think
>> the Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian
>> qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the
>> new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and
>> advocacy that requires urgent attention.
>>     
> ...and understanding, one may want to add. ;-) SCNR
>
>   
>> In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort
>> to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year.
>>     
> It seems to me we need much more discussion amongst ourselves first.
>
> But of course, a draft paper would help facilitate that, as Ginger has
> suggested.
>
> A good start by the way is Milton's paper from the GigaNet Symposium 2007
> (not sure if it has been mentioned so far):
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf>
>
> Best, Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090110/be132d6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat Jan 10 07:33:47 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:33:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Parminder schrieb:
> Ralf
> 
> I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.
Hope I can help.

> You seem to say that there is *no* (or little) difference between
> positions of Obama and Lessig as shows from their recent statements that
> I quoted.
> 
> " (no one) should be able to ...... charge different rates to different
> Web sites" (Obama)
> 
> "network providers should be free to charge different rates for
> different services long as the faster service at a higher price is
> available to anyone willing to pay it."  (Lessig)
> 
> Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ? 

Don't confuse upstream and downstream.

Obama was speaking about access providers at the downstream end, who
should not discriminate different websites. As Milton said, this is one of
the core issues of NN, and it is also related to the various "filtering"
efforts with regard to "offensive" or "illegal" content. (For the question
if this debate is over, or which part of it, see below.)

Lessig was speaking about "services", which is the upstream end. Of
course, whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
maybe even number of hops, ...). His point is that this should be
available to anyone willing to pay the same price for the same service
quality, therefore preventing tying and discrimination of content from
competitors in case a network provider is also offering his own content.
It does not contradict Obama's statement, but is orthogonal to it.

> At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama
> speaks against a tiered internet, 
Define "tiered internet", please. I did not use this term.

> but your position here is that this is
> no longer a relevant issue.
I was referring to the debate around two years ago, when some big ISPs
said they want extra money from e.g. Youtube, "because they are
responsible for so much of our last mile traffic". This is what Obama
referred to, and this is dead IMHO. No-one has figured out how the exact
business model would look like, how e.g. Version would be able to force
Youtube into such a contract, etc. And of course the last mile customers
are already paying for that part of the network and bandwidth. (A nice
win-win approach here is edge caching, which of course should be available
under the same conditions to anyone willing to pay for it.)

The underlying issue of course has not gone away, it is last mile
bandwidth restrictions, over-subscription etc. Now the ISPs have started
throttling specific services like bittorrent, but have also been beaten up
for this (see the Comcast case). This part of the "battle" is far from
over. We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
movement away from flat fees (as we already see in the mobile market),
which may be a good thing for less heavy users (I could get faster
pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a month. But since I don't play
online games, I can save this money). We may also see that users want to
keep flat fees and move to ISPs that are investing in more bandwidth. But
I am not sure what a progressive and human-rights-friendly approach would
be like around these issues, except that I should always be able to get a
fully unfiltered internet access if I pay for it.

> Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet
> content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the
> network." (
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
> ). 
I don't think this was one of the best publications Lessig wrote. Packets
never have moved at the same speed over the whole internet. It always
depends on uplink and downlink bandwidth, but also on the peering
agreements the different autonomous systems have with each other, on the
number of hops, on where intercontinental cables exist etc. I *guess* what
Lessig meant (or at least what is relevant here today imho) is that at any
given point in the network, packets passing through it should be treated
equally. This is the "good old best effort" internet, and this is under
heavy attack by recent technological innovations like deep packet
inspection, layer-7 switches, application-based routing etc. But again,
this is not easy black or white. This stuff can be used for malware
filtering or for more efficient network operation, but also for
discriminating specific applications and content. Again, this is all very
technical, so fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help claifying
much, I am afraid. In any case, this technology will not go away, and I
fully support discussing a progressive and human-rights based approach
towards it. But is is a radically different approach from the model
"Youtube pays my ISP extra money, so I can still watch online videos in
the future" which Obama referred to.

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jan 10 09:00:36 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:00:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC>


I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
of NN from a user/civil society perspective.

It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
on transient technical capacities and designs.

The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
"public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
so on.

The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
local private, group and public interests.

If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality


All,

I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net 
neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by 
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a 
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in 
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!); 
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to 
do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this 
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply 
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)

There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and 
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the 
subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting 
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for 
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I 
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate 
upon implications for the user.

I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the 
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I 
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework 
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or 
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and 
delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level, 
where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier 
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not 
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely 
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by 
packet.

This is a REAL Internet governance topic.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under 
>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article 
>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at 
>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>t00012),
>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>
>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most 
>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in 
>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z 
>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to 
>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator 
>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory 
>handles (or lack
>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>
>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering 
>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>

-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------



-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central: 
+1.202.370.7734                     
SKYPE: sadowsky

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 11:00:13 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:30:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net> <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <4968C60D.5000505@itforchange.net>

Ralf,

Thanks for the clarification, what you say is clearer now.

>Don't confuse upstream and downstream.

No, I dont see them differently in terms of network neutrality (NN). NN applies to both. Neither do I see Obama's comment as specifically referring only to the 'downstream' part and Lessig's to the 'upstream' part. Obama's speaks of no special favour to any content - upstream or downstream; Lessig accepts favors if they are priced in a non-discriminatory manner, ie are available at the same price and conditions to all who are ready to pay. 

>whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
>service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
>maybe even number of hops, ...). 

That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission over the (public) Internet. A private IP based service - VPN - for transmitting some content from a provider to the ISP premises is a different matter though.

>We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
>movement away from flat fees

As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for the size of the pipe) as an NN issue. I am fine with non-flat, slab-based rates, and it is already so in India in most places. 

> fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help clarifying
much, I am afraid.

The term two-tier Internet figures in Obama's pre-election technology policy document. I quote the whole part on NN. See especially " Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to   charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others."

Parminder

Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.

*Protect the Openness of the Internet:* A key reason the Internet has 
been such a success is because it is the
most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama 
strongly supports the principle of
network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the 
Internet. Users must be free to access
content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have 
a right to receive accurate and honest
information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to 
prevent network providers from
discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the 
Internet. Because most Americans only have
a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to 
impose a toll charge on content and
services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for 
equal treatment. This could create a twotier
Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network 
providers can get the fastest access to
consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a 
result would threaten innovation, the
open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among 
content and backbone providers. It would
also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has 
begun to transform American political and
cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that 
network providers should not be allowed to
charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites 
and Internet applications over others. This
principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or 
non-profit speakers, have the same
opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large 
audiences. Obama will protect the
Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure 
that it remains a platform for free speech
and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>> Ralf
>>
>> I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.
>>     
> Hope I can help.
>
>   
>> You seem to say that there is *no* (or little) difference between
>> positions of Obama and Lessig as shows from their recent statements that
>> I quoted.
>>
>> " (no one) should be able to ...... charge different rates to different
>> Web sites" (Obama)
>>
>> "network providers should be free to charge different rates for
>> different services long as the faster service at a higher price is
>> available to anyone willing to pay it."  (Lessig)
>>
>> Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ? 
>>     
>
> Don't confuse upstream and downstream.
>
> Obama was speaking about access providers at the downstream end, who
> should not discriminate different websites. As Milton said, this is one of
> the core issues of NN, and it is also related to the various "filtering"
> efforts with regard to "offensive" or "illegal" content. (For the question
> if this debate is over, or which part of it, see below.)
>
> Lessig was speaking about "services", which is the upstream end. Of
> course, whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
> service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
> maybe even number of hops, ...). His point is that this should be
> available to anyone willing to pay the same price for the same service
> quality, therefore preventing tying and discrimination of content from
> competitors in case a network provider is also offering his own content.
> It does not contradict Obama's statement, but is orthogonal to it.
>
>   
>> At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama
>> speaks against a tiered internet, 
>>     
> Define "tiered internet", please. I did not use this term.
>
>   
>> but your position here is that this is
>> no longer a relevant issue.
>>     
> I was referring to the debate around two years ago, when some big ISPs
> said they want extra money from e.g. Youtube, "because they are
> responsible for so much of our last mile traffic". This is what Obama
> referred to, and this is dead IMHO. No-one has figured out how the exact
> business model would look like, how e.g. Version would be able to force
> Youtube into such a contract, etc. And of course the last mile customers
> are already paying for that part of the network and bandwidth. (A nice
> win-win approach here is edge caching, which of course should be available
> under the same conditions to anyone willing to pay for it.)
>
> The underlying issue of course has not gone away, it is last mile
> bandwidth restrictions, over-subscription etc. Now the ISPs have started
> throttling specific services like bittorrent, but have also been beaten up
> for this (see the Comcast case). This part of the "battle" is far from
> over. We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
> movement away from flat fees (as we already see in the mobile market),
> which may be a good thing for less heavy users (I could get faster
> pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a month. But since I don't play
> online games, I can save this money). We may also see that users want to
> keep flat fees and move to ISPs that are investing in more bandwidth. But
> I am not sure what a progressive and human-rights-friendly approach would
> be like around these issues, except that I should always be able to get a
> fully unfiltered internet access if I pay for it.
>
>   
>> Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet
>> content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the
>> network." (
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
>> ). 
>>     
> I don't think this was one of the best publications Lessig wrote. Packets
> never have moved at the same speed over the whole internet. It always
> depends on uplink and downlink bandwidth, but also on the peering
> agreements the different autonomous systems have with each other, on the
> number of hops, on where intercontinental cables exist etc. I *guess* what
> Lessig meant (or at least what is relevant here today imho) is that at any
> given point in the network, packets passing through it should be treated
> equally. This is the "good old best effort" internet, and this is under
> heavy attack by recent technological innovations like deep packet
> inspection, layer-7 switches, application-based routing etc. But again,
> this is not easy black or white. This stuff can be used for malware
> filtering or for more efficient network operation, but also for
> discriminating specific applications and content. Again, this is all very
> technical, so fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help claifying
> much, I am afraid. In any case, this technology will not go away, and I
> fully support discussing a progressive and human-rights based approach
> towards it. But is is a radically different approach from the model
> "Youtube pays my ISP extra money, so I can still watch online videos in
> the future" which Obama referred to.
>
> Best, Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090110/74fc80c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jan 10 10:08:29 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:08:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
	 <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>
	 <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901100708q2d829b48k9092bc33edda368b@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ralf Bendrath
<bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> but your position here is that this is
>> no longer a relevant issue.
> I was referring to the debate around two years ago, when some big ISPs
> said they want extra money from e.g. Youtube, "because they are
> responsible for so much of our last mile traffic".

The most memorable quote was from AT&T. Chairman Ed Whitacre, "For a
Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes
for free is nuts!"

of course, those companies already pay once to use those "pipes", but
he wanted them to pay twice.  This position is what is "over".


This is what Obama
> referred to, and this is dead IMHO. No-one has figured out how the exact
> business model would look like, how e.g. Version would be able to force
> Youtube into such a contract, etc. And of course the last mile customers
> are already paying for that part of the network and bandwidth. (A nice
> win-win approach here is edge caching, which of course should be available
> under the same conditions to anyone willing to pay for it.)
>

agreed, but one can run a cache for free as well as buying one from Google.

> The underlying issue of course has not gone away, it is last mile
> bandwidth restrictions, over-subscription etc. Now the ISPs have started
> throttling specific services like bittorrent, but have also been beaten up
> for this (see the Comcast case). This part of the "battle" is far from
> over. We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
> movement away from flat fees (as we already see in the mobile market),
> which may be a good thing for less heavy users (I could get faster
> pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a month. But since I don't play
> online games, I can save this money).

I haven't seen that kind of offering yet, do you have a link?

>> Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet
>> content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the
>> network." (
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
>> ).
> I don't think this was one of the best publications Lessig wrote. Packets
> never have moved at the same speed over the whole internet. It always
> depends on uplink and downlink bandwidth, but also on the peering
> agreements the different autonomous systems have with each other, on the
> number of hops, on where intercontinental cables exist etc.

Parminder's confusion probably comes from conflating speed with bandwidth.

Speed depends, in part, on amount of bandwidth, but bandwidth =! speed.

I *guess* what
> Lessig meant (or at least what is relevant here today imho) is that at any
> given point in the network, packets passing through it should be treated
> equally. This is the "good old best effort" internet, and this is under
> heavy attack by recent technological innovations like deep packet
> inspection, layer-7 switches, application-based routing etc. But again,
> this is not easy black or white. This stuff can be used for malware
> filtering or for more efficient network operation, but also for
> discriminating specific applications and content.

Like voice and as you mentioned gaming, or other real time apps.

Those packets do want to be prioritised.  Other packets, like torrents
can wait, as delivery is not time sensitive.  Where these decisions
are made are in the routers.  Can someone tell me how to program a
router so that it is "progressive and human-rights based" ?  ;-)

-- 
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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Jan 10 11:34:52 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:34:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.
 syr.edu>
References: <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
 <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF12@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <fecfce260901091034lefc2a63mc8d96606cefabe6d@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20090110175539.EC54F67860@smtp1.electricembers.net>

At 22:40 09/01/2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>a commiment by bandwidth suppliers to provide nondiscriminatory 
>access to content, applications and services;

Could you just document this, as it may be technology and bandwidth 
dependant. Criteria being whose?
jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090110/da685535/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat Jan 10 13:19:18 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:19:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4968C60D.5000505@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net> <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4968C60D.5000505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Parminder schrieb:
>> whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his service,
>> even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback, maybe
>> even number of hops, ...).
> 
> That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission
> over the (public) Internet.
I was talking about access.

The transmission over the backbones depends on which peering agreements my
ISP has etc. There is no thing such as the "public" internet in this sense
- it's all private contracts between different autonomous systems and with
the owners of the "tubes". Of course, one can debate which kinds of
principles we would like to establish to ensure the backbone traffic is
not discriminating against specific content etc.

>> We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a 
>> movement away from flat fees
> 
> As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for
> the size of the pipe) as an NN issue.
And why would this not apply to the backbones as you mention above? Now
you confuse me.

> Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.
> 
> (...) carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on
> content and services, discriminating against websites that are
> unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a twotier 
> Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network 
> providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing
> websites remain in a slower lane.
As I said, this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed. Maybe someone
here wants to apply for an advisory position in the Obama adminstration? ;-)

But before we go too deep into the fuzzy and potentially outdated
formulations of a specific candidate who won an election in one specific
country, can I ask the million Euro question?

"What are the global public policy implications of all this?"

Ralf

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jan 10 13:36:39 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:36:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
	 <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>
	 <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <4968C60D.5000505@itforchange.net>
	 <4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901101036qdfb4a96lb2d0ed568c2e8159@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ralf Bendrath
<bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> "What are the global public policy implications of all this?"

or better yet "Are there any global public policy implications of all this"

-- 
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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat Jan 10 13:06:51 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:06:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901100708q2d829b48k9092bc33edda368b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>	 <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	 <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net>	 <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <f65fb55e0901100708q2d829b48k9092bc33edda368b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4968E3BB.80305@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

McTim schrieb:
>> I could get faster pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a
>> month. But since I don't play online games, I can save this money
> 
> I haven't seen that kind of offering yet, do you have a link?
Sorry, I mixed things up. It was not my provider, but a different one who
recently sent me this offer on paper. Could not find it online, though.
But I remember reading it, because I had the same reaction as you.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jan 10 14:29:29 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] NN | Let IGF separate Fact-&-Fiction from clever
 Marketing
Message-ID: <sympa.1231615241.97016.341@lists.cpsr.org>

Execs see technology as economic equalizer

By: Marguerite Reardon CNET News/CBS Interactive
January 9, 2009 8:01 PM PST

Art. Ref.:
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-19167_1-10139537-100.html
--

LAS VEGAS--Two of the tech industries biggest champions for using technology to
eliminate poverty in the developing world took the stage at the Consumer
Electronics Show here on Friday for the final keynotes of the conference.

The message that the executives brought to the crowd at CES was simple:
Technology is key to improving the lives of billions of poor people throughout
the world. Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers
have each received awards and have been lauded for their work in helping fight
poverty throughout the world. 

Barrett took the stage first, where he promoted Intel's newly formed program
called Small Things Challenge, a partnership the company announced this week
with microfinancing firmKiva.org and Save the Children. 

As part of this campaign, which is raising funds for Kiva and Save the
Children, Intel has promised to donate 5 cents for every person who visits the
Smallthingschallenge.com Web site, to push for development and education in
emerging countries. And Intel plans to provide up to $300,000 a year for the
project.

During the keynote, Barrett provided several examples of how technology,
including the new third generation Classmate PC Netbook, which uses Intel's
low-power Atom chip, can help improve the lives of people living in poor
countries. And he urged everyone in the audience to contribute to Kiva and Save
the Children.

"You travel and see the impact that technology and your donations can have on
children's lives," he said. "Whether it's Kiva or Save the Children, it's a
small step toward making the world a better place. But each and every one of us
can play a role."

Intel has enlisted the help of several celebrities to get the word out about
the Small Things Challenge. And two of the celebrities supporting the effort,
joined Barrett on stage, Adam Levine of Maroon 5 and Adam Duritz of Counting
Crows.

Chambers didn't need star power when he took the stage later in the afternoon.
The charismatic executive walked among the crowd like a Southern preacher at a
church revival. But his message was less about philanthropy and giving back as
an individual, and more about how developing countries can implement technology
to pull themselves out of poverty.

He started off describing what he considers the "pillars of national
competitiveness" that will make developing nations more prosperous. The pillars
are education, infrastructure, innovation, the ability to identify market
transitions, a supportive government, and collaboration.

He said technology is important to developing nations because it helps drive
economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity. And he said it could
help improve the quality of life of people, especially when it comes to health
care.

Chambers likened developing countries to businesses, and he compared his own
company's successes in growing its business over the years to what countries
must do to improve the lives of their citizens. He said that countries, like
companies, need to look out for market transitions. But he also said that they
need to have a clear vision of where they want to go, and they must be able to
execute on that vision. What's more, new ideas need to be able to scale as well
as be sustainable.

"Emerging countries are like companies," he said. "And they can follow the same
path toward success. You must be able to execute. But you can't have speed
without vision. And catching market transitions determines whether a company or
a country is successful."

---

Credit: Marguerite Reardon CNET News/CBS Interactive
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell
phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well
as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies

-30-

P.S.:
NN | Let IGF separate Fact-&-Fiction from clever Marketing

Industrialist obviously see NN as an opportunity... for profitable business.
How will the IGF distill the Myths?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Jan 10 16:37:21 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:37:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] NN | Let IGF separate Fact-&-Fiction from clever
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1231615241.97016.341@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1231615241.97016.341@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <49691511.8020409@wzb.eu>

No offence but I wouldn't want to live in a country that's run like a 
company.
jeanette

Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Execs see technology as economic equalizer
> 
> By: Marguerite Reardon CNET News/CBS Interactive
> January 9, 2009 8:01 PM PST
> 
> Art. Ref.:
> http://ces.cnet.com/8301-19167_1-10139537-100.html
> --
> 
> LAS VEGAS--Two of the tech industries biggest champions for using technology to
> eliminate poverty in the developing world took the stage at the Consumer
> Electronics Show here on Friday for the final keynotes of the conference.
> 
> The message that the executives brought to the crowd at CES was simple:
> Technology is key to improving the lives of billions of poor people throughout
> the world. Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers
> have each received awards and have been lauded for their work in helping fight
> poverty throughout the world. 
> 
> Barrett took the stage first, where he promoted Intel's newly formed program
> called Small Things Challenge, a partnership the company announced this week
> with microfinancing firmKiva.org and Save the Children. 
> 
> As part of this campaign, which is raising funds for Kiva and Save the
> Children, Intel has promised to donate 5 cents for every person who visits the
> Smallthingschallenge.com Web site, to push for development and education in
> emerging countries. And Intel plans to provide up to $300,000 a year for the
> project.
> 
> During the keynote, Barrett provided several examples of how technology,
> including the new third generation Classmate PC Netbook, which uses Intel's
> low-power Atom chip, can help improve the lives of people living in poor
> countries. And he urged everyone in the audience to contribute to Kiva and Save
> the Children.
> 
> "You travel and see the impact that technology and your donations can have on
> children's lives," he said. "Whether it's Kiva or Save the Children, it's a
> small step toward making the world a better place. But each and every one of us
> can play a role."
> 
> Intel has enlisted the help of several celebrities to get the word out about
> the Small Things Challenge. And two of the celebrities supporting the effort,
> joined Barrett on stage, Adam Levine of Maroon 5 and Adam Duritz of Counting
> Crows.
> 
> Chambers didn't need star power when he took the stage later in the afternoon.
> The charismatic executive walked among the crowd like a Southern preacher at a
> church revival. But his message was less about philanthropy and giving back as
> an individual, and more about how developing countries can implement technology
> to pull themselves out of poverty.
> 
> He started off describing what he considers the "pillars of national
> competitiveness" that will make developing nations more prosperous. The pillars
> are education, infrastructure, innovation, the ability to identify market
> transitions, a supportive government, and collaboration.
> 
> He said technology is important to developing nations because it helps drive
> economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity. And he said it could
> help improve the quality of life of people, especially when it comes to health
> care.
> 
> Chambers likened developing countries to businesses, and he compared his own
> company's successes in growing its business over the years to what countries
> must do to improve the lives of their citizens. He said that countries, like
> companies, need to look out for market transitions. But he also said that they
> need to have a clear vision of where they want to go, and they must be able to
> execute on that vision. What's more, new ideas need to be able to scale as well
> as be sustainable.
> 
> "Emerging countries are like companies," he said. "And they can follow the same
> path toward success. You must be able to execute. But you can't have speed
> without vision. And catching market transitions determines whether a company or
> a country is successful."
> 
> ---
> 
> Credit: Marguerite Reardon CNET News/CBS Interactive
> Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell
> phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well
> as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies
> 
> -30-
> 
> P.S.:
> NN | Let IGF separate Fact-&-Fiction from clever Marketing
> 
> Industrialist obviously see NN as an opportunity... for profitable business.
> How will the IGF distill the Myths?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jan 10 23:07:00 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] NN | Let IGF separate Fact-&-Fiction from
In-Reply-To: 49691511.8020409@wzb.eu
Message-ID: <sympa.1231646469.97016.397@lists.cpsr.org>


No offence taken Jeanette, 
> I wouldn't want to live in a country that's run like a company

Nor would I, but you and I both live in an Industrialized Country (the First
World) and the reality is, The Industries of our Countries at some degree,
run/govern our national infrastructures on the ground and in our Capitals.
The past eight years of the Bush administration is an outstanding example of
how the Oil-Industrialist run the US and European Countries. 
(Industrial Governance of the Oil-Commodity)

The contrast I found profound in this article was in its entire embodiment.

Here we find a complete circle of Industrialist journalism: 
A 'CNet' article written about a CES (Consumer Electronics Show) event, wherein
the articles main characters (Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and Cisco Systems
CEO John Chambers) espouse the grand benefits of an Open Information Society,
and their Companies commitment to the third World.

A very slick piece of modern commercial journalism.


IMO | The contrasting-angles of this is the Industrialists peddling the idea
that 'Knowledge is the Answer to everything' that implys a Net Neutral Open
Information Society will improve life for those in developing countries. They
deliberately position it as if 'Knowledge is the new Gold Standard', and our
Companies are helping to deliver it.

I seem to recall IBM using the slogan: Knowledge is Power. 

The "clever Marketing" in this spin is to 'commodities knowledge' as if it were
Gold, enticing underdeveloped Governments to desire and buy-into the
Industrialist program. Once subscribed, the Governments find themselves at the
mercy of their Industrialist Providers, thus an Industrial Governance of the
Knowledge-Commodity.

Ret. 
Jeanette, I still have questions of my own;

"Is Knowledge the answer to everything?"

With regard to the knowledge found on the Internet:

"To what degree does 'Learning' become 'Entertainment'?"

"Can the Internet's Knowledge-content be made to be as desirable as Gold"
(will a Society take the higher road?)

"How will the IGF distill Marketing-Myths of Industrialist and truly Govern in
a manner that is beneficial to Society, in particularly third-world
communities."
-

I don't know.
Kind regards
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 10 23:21:24 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:51:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC>
Message-ID: <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net>


Michael

>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.

Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network 
neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to 
traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a reasonable 
goal should be to establish a framework that allows/requires an ISP to 
declare, in simple language or languages, its policies with respect to 
content manipulation and delivery. "

If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and 
specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies 
open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately 
manipulated.

Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO they 
come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what constitutes  
inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN). Otherwise, what 
if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of transmission 
service as per different payment slabs, and then adheres to it 
sincerely, and also announces means of redress if found violating. I 
dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.

A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in addressing 
ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are likely, to be 
considered patently and obviously wrong. Such statements can also be 
tested in the courts against normal competition and anti-trust laws. 
However, transparent declaration of self-defined policy, and possible 
means of redressal, while being important, by themselves do not fill in 
for the need to have some clear public interest principles and 
regulations defining and enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such 
principles takes the discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a 
user perspective.

To quote again from Obama's technology doc

"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to 
attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and 
honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not 
enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that 
limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote in 
my previous email)

Parminder

Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
> pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
> value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
> discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
> towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
> of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>
> It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
> definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
> term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
> on transient technical capacities and designs.
>
> The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
> governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
> that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
> "public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
> something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
> the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
> develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
> araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
> on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
> so on.
>
> The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
> have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
> management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
> local private, group and public interests.
>
> If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
> it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
> this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
> competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
> kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
> Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
> isolatedn at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
>
> All,
>
> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net 
> neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by 
> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a 
> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in 
> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!); 
> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to 
> do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this 
> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply 
> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>
> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and 
> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the 
> subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting 
> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for 
> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I 
> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate 
> upon implications for the user.
>
> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the 
> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I 
> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework 
> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or 
> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and 
> delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level, 
> where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier 
> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not 
> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely 
> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by 
> packet.
>
> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>   
>> Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under 
>> the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article 
>> (unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at 
>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>> t00012),
>> which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>> (www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
>> PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>
>> In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most 
>> if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in 
>> consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z 
>> country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to 
>> reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator 
>> is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory 
>> handles (or lack
>> thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>> political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>> brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>
>> However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering 
>> NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>     
>
> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090111/83e94ee2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 01:22:18 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:22:18 +1100
Subject: [governance] Members of Nomcom for MAG nominations
Message-ID: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>

Below are the details of the random selection process for the Nomcom
members. They will join the independent chair (Dr Derrick Cogburn) and start
their work immediately.

Should anyone wish to check the results, I've posted the details of the
random process as carried out by Avri Doria below.

The randomly selected members are

17. Javier Pinzón
31. Stuart Hamilton
14. Renate Bloem
23. Rudi Vansnick
26. Siranush Vardanyan

Should any member drop out details of the replacements are also below

Thank you everyone for participating, and congratulations to the Nomcom
members. 




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 ltu.se] 
Sent: 11 January 2009 16:47
To: Ginger Paque
Cc: Ian Peter
Subject: the picks

Hi,

and the chosen are:

17, 31, 14, 23, 26

i.e

17. Javier Pinzón
31. Stuart Hamilton
14. Renate Bloem
23. Rudi Vansnick
26. Siranush Vardanyan

with 11 3, 28, 8, and 7 as the next 5 should you need to go further  
through the list for any reason (such as unavailability of one of the  
selected five):

11. Adam Peake
3.  Philippe Dam
28. Asif Kabani
...


----

And the gory details:

Drawn seed on 10 Jan 2008

http://www.lotto.ie/  1 9 15 19 23 32
http://www.national-lottery.co.uk 5 8 11 15 38 45
http://www.powerball.com  8 10 18 43 56

Run of Program

phoenix-2:rfc3797-process avri$ ./random-order
Type size of pool:
warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe.
(or 'exit' to exit) 32
Type number of items to be selected:
(or 'exit' to exit) 10
Approximately 26.0 bits of entropy needed.

Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
to 16 x.y format reals.
1 9 15 19 23 32
1 9 15 19 23 32
Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
to 16 x.y format reals.
5 8 11 15 38 45
5 8 11 15 38 45
Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
to 16 x.y format reals.
8 10 18 43 56
8 10 18 43 56
Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
to 16 x.y format reals.
end
Key is:
  1.9.15.19.23.32./5.8.11.15.38.45./8.10.18.43.56./
index        hex value of MD5        div  selected
  1  F0CB29A1B77B162E748E18B672F935B0  32  -> 17 <-
  2  6D2F22E9E58DD2BDF83B5B140A9247D4  31  -> 31 <-
  3  1AB57B7B61C38D995ACCD29839AEE6E3  30  -> 14 <-
  4  E155FCF37DE95686C09AA807406CB181  29  -> 23 <-
  5  4EE267AC47AA47A7978CA0C12C0BA74A  28  -> 26 <-
  6  BB3ACEB499C5773196A8D992A0F7A08E  27  -> 11 <-
  7  A35FAE4907062F47EAB4CF01D57FD0E8  26  ->  3 <-
  8  53636645D119DA4E90911562EFFB98B7  25  -> 28 <-
  9  136FBF01A3AF6D00645E1E00D89836EE  24  ->  8 <-
10  297A6F1A7D5C660F7F498229B3178047  23  ->  7 <-

Done, type any character to exit.


On 6 Jan 2009, at 19:32, Ginger Paque wrote:

>
> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
> 3.  Philippe Dam
> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
> 5.  Raquel Gatto
> 6.  Rafik Dammak
> 7.  Shaila Mistry
> 8.  Tricia Wang
> 9.  Anja Kovacs
> 10. Hempal Shrestha
> 11. Adam Peake
> 12. Ken Lohento
> 13. Emmanuel Edet
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 15. Schombe Baudoin
> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
> 22. Norbert Klein
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 24. Omar Kaminski
> 25. Ray Plzak
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
> 27. Bret Fausett
> 28. Asif Kabani
> 29. Dave Kissoondoyal
> 30. Stephanie Psaila
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> 32. Jeffrey Hunker
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 11 03:17:38 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:47:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <496831E7.7010702@itforchange.net> <496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4968C60D.5000505@itforchange.net> <4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <4969AB22.9060409@itforchange.net>

Ralf

>>That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission
>>over the (public) Internet.

>I was talking about access.

This distinction lies at the bottom of much of confusion in this debate 
on this list, and it will be useful to have some conceptual clarity 
around this. We can still disagree on issues, but we can try to agree on 
meaning of concepts and basic analytical categories. The pipe-width to 
access the Internet is something very different from nature of 
transmission of traffic/ content over the Internet. I am fine, for the 
present purpose, with any method of pricing pipe width, or as you say 
access. But I am against any kind of pricing of nature of transmission 
of traffic/ content. In case of pricing of pipe-width or access, the 
control is still in the hands of the user. She can (at least 
theoretically, assuming she has the money) pay more or less and get 
corresponding access. However, and this is most important point to note, 
when content transmission  is paid for by the content provider for 
differential treatment, the control is *not* with the user. The control 
is with the network operator. User can do nothing to switch between 
different options, even if ready to pay differently for doing so. 
Certain kind of content will be more overwhelming than other, and the 
problem is that once this line is crossed conceptually, and the 
principle of user control and right of equal access to all Internet 
content is lost, market's known ways of dominance cascading into ever 
increasing domination (on digital platforms we know this phenomenon is 
even more magnified) will ensure that Internet looks like something much 
closer to cable TV today that we can perhaps imagine.

Sure, other content will not (be allowed to) entirely disappear but all 
such (non-commercial) content that the provider has not paid for (which 
include so much of what we value most on the Internet) may become 
something akin to those obscure, difficult to get and difficult to read, 
pamphlets of social and community campaigns, that we may occasionally 
pick up in order to indulge our morality and social/ community 
conscience. The all-around glitz of the paid-for commercial content will 
be too over-powering for it to be any other way. This is the structural 
difference between paying for 'pulling content' form the Internet and  
paying for 'pushing content' into it. This distinction defines the very 
nature of the Internet as we know it, and especially its role and 
potential as a democratic media.

 >this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed.

I will like to take your word and McTim's that is no current or future 
danger at all that there will be price based differentiated Quality of 
Service (QoS) and speed of transmission of content ever on the Internet. 
(Pl correct me if I havent worded it right.) That will solve my original 
problem.

However, just is case that this danger is not entirely gone , can you 
(and McTim) accept it as a NN principle  - that we should advocate that 
there should not any differentiated  *price* based QoS/ speed  content 
discrimination on the Internet.

We are already all agreed that

(1) Vertical tying/ bundling services by a company and/or discriminatory 
exclusive business deals that make for QoS/ speed differentiation among 
different content and applications is one of the most important issues of NN

(2) ISPs should clearly self declare their content/ traffic management 
policies

(3) Users should have clearly laid out means of redress in case illegal/ 
inappropriate traffic/ content practices are found.

(4) any other ???

We all also agree that we are against censorship on the Internet. 
However, I would think that since the motivations for censorship 
(mostly, political/ cultural) are very different from that of curtailing 
NN (economic), the two concepts should be kept conceptually separate. 
This will help to deal with both kinds of problem much better.

parminder


Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>>> whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his service,
>>> even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback, maybe
>>> even number of hops, ...).
>>>       
>> That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission
>> over the (public) Internet.
>>     
> I was talking about access.
>
> The transmission over the backbones depends on which peering agreements my
> ISP has etc. There is no thing such as the "public" internet in this sense
> - it's all private contracts between different autonomous systems and with
> the owners of the "tubes". Of course, one can debate which kinds of
> principles we would like to establish to ensure the backbone traffic is
> not discriminating against specific content etc.
>
>   
>>> We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a 
>>> movement away from flat fees
>>>       
>> As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for
>> the size of the pipe) as an NN issue.
>>     
> And why would this not apply to the backbones as you mention above? Now
> you confuse me.
>
>   
>> Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.
>>
>> (...) carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on
>> content and services, discriminating against websites that are
>> unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a twotier 
>> Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network 
>> providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing
>> websites remain in a slower lane.
>>     
> As I said, this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed. Maybe someone
> here wants to apply for an advisory position in the Obama adminstration? ;-)
>
> But before we go too deep into the fuzzy and potentially outdated
> formulations of a specific candidate who won an election in one specific
> country, can I ask the million Euro question?
>
> "What are the global public policy implications of all this?"
>
> Ralf
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090111/a690d474/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nancyp at yorku.ca  Sun Jan 11 13:54:08 2009
From: nancyp at yorku.ca (nancyp at yorku.ca)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:54:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <20090108174054.D10FEA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC> <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net> <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com> <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com> <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net> <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br> <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]> <20090108174054.D10FEA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <1231700048.496a40509f577@mymail.yorku.ca>

Hi all,

A neutral network must ensure that data is reachable from anywhere on the
internet network. At present the internet has no minimum standard of acceptable
performance for reachability of websites and data. The internet as an
information tool is useless without clarifying standards of reachability. Is it
a tool for edutainment or for information?

The most famous example of non-neutrality in Canada occurred during the Telus
labour dispute (2005). (Benkler, 2006)  Telus blocked access to a pro-union
website by blocking the server on which it was hosted. Researchers at Harvard,
Cambridge and the University of Toronto, Munk Centre, OpenNet Initiative found
that the action resulted in an additional 766 unrelated sites also being
blocked for subscribers. (OpenNet Initiative Bulletin 010, 2005).

Another important example of the unreachability of data took place in March 2008
at York University. A professor using the on-campus network attempted to reach
an internet website located somewhere in Europe that was important to his
research.  After repeated attempts, he still could not reach the site so he
contacted the IT (Information Technology) department at the university. They
were mystified why this would be the case. When the professor went home,
however, he found that he could reach the website. After several days the IT
department found out that the university’s bandwidth supplier Cogent had
severed a peering relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia
which was the bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was
trying to reach. (Miller, 2008) Cogent did not proactively inform the
University of the issue and the loss of connectivity.

Reachability is a net neutrality question. The policy concept of common carriage
evolved into net neutrality through deregulation in the context of a transition
from analog to digital communications. Unreachability of internet data may be
due to geo-political factors, uncontrollable technical reasons as well as human
error, but unreachability due to hidden arbitrariness in commercial peering is
unacceptable. The problem of the lack of transparency in commercial internet
interconnection is largely a US problem as the US is the main battleground for
carriers refusing peering.

Nancy Paterson
PhD Comm program, YorkU
Toronto Canada

Quoting JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>:

> At 16:01 08/01/2009, George Sadowsky wrote:
> >All,
> >I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
> >neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
> >ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
> >government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
> >the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
> >and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying
> >to do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that
> >this would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or
> >simply inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>
> Dear George,
> I am afraid you are only partly correct. Every debate about Net
> Neutraility is pure nonsense, until one starts openly documenting
> legally, societally, technically, internationally, and politically
> (the 5 WSIS governance poles) what are:
> - the Internet
> - what is the "Net"
> - what is "Neutrality"
> - by who
> - where
> and everyone involved has read, fully understood and appreciated the
> positive/negative impact of RFC 3238, 3752, 3835, 3836, 3837, 3838,
> 3897, 3914, 4037, 4236, 4496 and 4902.
>
> Then and only by then one could try to evaluate if "Net Neutrality"
> differs from "Life Neutrality" and if it makes sense. Or if we want
> to talk about Net Life Quality, Protection, Ecology, Consistency, etc...
>
> >There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
> >there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
> >subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
> >definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
> >users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
> >agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not
> >concentrate upon implications for the user.
>
> Question is not so much to dispute what we do not want, but to obtain
> what we want. This means understanding what is possible, deciding,
> and acting logically enough to obtain it.
>
> >I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what
> >the ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and
> >I would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a
> >framework that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language
> >or languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
> >delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
> >where there is one path to the user's computer.
>
> This is the datacom last mile problem - another part with economy,
> multilinguistics, technology convergence, etc. of the access issue.
> Lax SSL management, lack of presentation layer, poor network usage
> architecture, confusion between the "Internet" and its many many
> "networks", etc. make all this extermely confuse. We need first to
> clarify all this new cross-subzidization issue. Locally in the US and
> for the rest of the world.
>
> >Although higher tier ISPs have the capability to make the same
> >declaration, it's not useful to the user in that the routes
> >traversed by packets are likely to belong to multiple carriers and
> >in theory may even vary, packet by packet.
> >
> >This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>
> Yes. This is why it must be considered as an intergovernance
> multilateral issue in the context of the current financial crisis,
> economical intelligence and unrestricted warfare. 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
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From asif at kabani.co.uk  Sun Jan 11 15:41:39 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:41:39 +0500
Subject: [governance] Members of Nomcom for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>
References: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901111241i77281647kf3394a1198d3ae61@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

Thanks for the result.


With Best Regards


Sincerely


Asif Kabani

2009/1/11 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Below are the details of the random selection process for the Nomcom
> members. They will join the independent chair (Dr Derrick Cogburn) and start
> their work immediately.
>
> Should anyone wish to check the results, I've posted the details of the
> random process as carried out by Avri Doria below.
>
> The randomly selected members are
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> Should any member drop out details of the replacements are also below
>
> Thank you everyone for participating, and congratulations to the Nomcom
> members.
>
>
>
>
> 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 ltu.se]
> Sent: 11 January 2009 16:47
> To: Ginger Paque
> Cc: Ian Peter
> Subject: the picks
>
> Hi,
>
> and the chosen are:
>
> 17, 31, 14, 23, 26
>
> i.e
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> with 11 3, 28, 8, and 7 as the next 5 should you need to go further
> through the list for any reason (such as unavailability of one of the
> selected five):
>
> 11. Adam Peake
> 3.  Philippe Dam
> 28. Asif Kabani
> ...
>
>
> ----
>
> And the gory details:
>
> Drawn seed on 10 Jan 2008
>
> http://www.lotto.ie/  1 9 15 19 23 32
> http://www.national-lottery.co.uk 5 8 11 15 38 45
> http://www.powerball.com  8 10 18 43 56
>
> Run of Program
>
> phoenix-2:rfc3797-process avri$ ./random-order
> Type size of pool:
> warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe.
> (or 'exit' to exit) 32
> Type number of items to be selected:
> (or 'exit' to exit) 10
> Approximately 26.0 bits of entropy needed.
>
> Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 1 9 15 19 23 32
> 1 9 15 19 23 32
> Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 5 8 11 15 38 45
> 5 8 11 15 38 45
> Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 8 10 18 43 56
> 8 10 18 43 56
> Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> end
> Key is:
>  1.9.15.19.23.32./5.8.11.15.38.45./8.10.18.43.56./
> index        hex value of MD5        div  selected
>  1  F0CB29A1B77B162E748E18B672F935B0  32  -> 17 <-
>  2  6D2F22E9E58DD2BDF83B5B140A9247D4  31  -> 31 <-
>  3  1AB57B7B61C38D995ACCD29839AEE6E3  30  -> 14 <-
>  4  E155FCF37DE95686C09AA807406CB181  29  -> 23 <-
>  5  4EE267AC47AA47A7978CA0C12C0BA74A  28  -> 26 <-
>  6  BB3ACEB499C5773196A8D992A0F7A08E  27  -> 11 <-
>  7  A35FAE4907062F47EAB4CF01D57FD0E8  26  ->  3 <-
>  8  53636645D119DA4E90911562EFFB98B7  25  -> 28 <-
>  9  136FBF01A3AF6D00645E1E00D89836EE  24  ->  8 <-
> 10  297A6F1A7D5C660F7F498229B3178047  23  ->  7 <-
>
> Done, type any character to exit.
>
>
> On 6 Jan 2009, at 19:32, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>
>> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>> 3.  Philippe Dam
>> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>> 7.  Shaila Mistry
>> 8.  Tricia Wang
>> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>> 10. Hempal Shrestha
>> 11. Adam Peake
>> 12. Ken Lohento
>> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>> 14. Renate Bloem
>> 15. Schombe Baudoin
>> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>> 17. Javier Pinzón
>> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
>> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
>> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>> 22. Norbert Klein
>> 23. Rudi Vansnick
>> 24. Omar Kaminski
>> 25. Ray Plzak
>> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>> 27. Bret Fausett
>> 28. Asif Kabani
>> 29. Dave Kissoondoyal
>> 30. Stephanie Psaila
>> 31. Stuart Hamilton
>> 32. Jeffrey Hunker
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jan 11 17:15:05 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:15:05 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <1231700048.496a40509f577@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC>
	 <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net>
	 <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net> <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br>
	 <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@10.0.1.2>
	 <20090108174054.D10FEA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <1231700048.496a40509f577@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901111415kad5ed27we634ae2b3b26f74a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A neutral network must ensure that data is reachable from anywhere on the
> internet network. At present the internet has no minimum standard of acceptable
> performance for reachability of websites and data.

As Avri and others have mentioned, this "standard" is called "best-effort".

The internet as an
> information tool is useless without clarifying standards of reachability.

It's been quite useful to me for over 20 years!



s it
> a tool for edutainment or for information?
>
<snip>

> Another important example of the unreachability of data took place in March 2008
> at York University. A professor using the on-campus network attempted to reach
> an internet website located somewhere in Europe that was important to his
> research.  After repeated attempts, he still could not reach the site so he
> contacted the IT (Information Technology) department at the university. They
> were mystified why this would be the case. When the professor went home,
> however, he found that he could reach the website. After several days the IT
> department found out that the university's bandwidth supplier Cogent had
> severed a peering relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia
> which was the bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was
> trying to reach. (Miller, 2008) Cogent did not proactively inform the
> University of the issue and the loss of connectivity.

Then York needs a new upstream....you gave us this story before IIRC.

>
> Reachability is a net neutrality question. The policy concept of common carriage
> evolved into net neutrality through deregulation in the context of a transition
> from analog to digital communications. Unreachability of internet data may be
> due to geo-political factors, uncontrollable technical reasons as well as human
> error, but unreachability due to hidden arbitrariness in commercial peering is
> unacceptable.

Then switch providers, or peer with more networks, so this isn't an issue.

 The problem of the lack of transparency in commercial internet
> interconnection is largely a US problem as the US is the main battleground for
> carriers refusing peering.

There is transparency if you only look in the right places.  I gave
you many hints last time we went thru this.  I can see who York is
connected to, and who those people are connected to, etc, etc.  What
you seemingly want is to see the peering agreements, which are private
contracts between commercial organisations.  Good luck with that.

-- 
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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Sun Jan 11 10:47:33 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:47:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC>
 <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]>

All,

Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and 
without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.

Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am 
hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because 
"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.

I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards 
of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing 
the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police) 
without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the 
details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as 
opinion by opinion.

I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate 
such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around 
the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what 
should go on and what should not go on a list.

One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their 
delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user 
can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos' 
suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there 
exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one 
ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it 
will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select 
their provider accordingly.

BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without 
ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different 
definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term, 
I think that's a good thing.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>Michael
>
>>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network 
>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to 
>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a 
>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that 
>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages, 
>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "
>
>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and 
>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies 
>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately 
>manipulated.
>
>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO 
>they come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what 
>constitutes  inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN). 
>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of 
>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then 
>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if 
>found violating. I dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.
>
>A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in 
>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are 
>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such 
>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal 
>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of 
>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being 
>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some 
>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and 
>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the 
>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.
>
>To quote again from Obama's technology doc
>
>"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to 
>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and 
>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not 
>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that 
>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote 
>in my previous email)
>
>Parminder
>
>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>>I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
>>pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
>>value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>
>>It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
>>definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
>>term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
>>on transient technical capacities and designs.
>>
>>The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
>>governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
>>that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
>>"public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
>>something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
>>the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
>>develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
>>araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
>>on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
>>so on.
>>
>>The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
>>have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
>>management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
>>local private, group and public interests.
>>
>>If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
>>it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
>>this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
>>competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
>>kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>>
>>MBG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: George Sadowsky 
>>[<mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org; 
>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>isolatedn at gmail.com
>>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>>do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>>would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>>inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>
>>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>>upon implications for the user.
>>
>>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>>would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>>that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>>languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>>where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>>ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>>useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>>to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>>packet.
>>
>>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>><http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>t00012),
>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>www.politics.org.br). If you can 
>>>manage Portuguese, please download the
>>>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>
>>>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>>>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>>>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
>>>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
>>>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
>>>handles (or lack
>>>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>
>>>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>
>>>frt rgds
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090111/dbd8ff1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 01:27:16 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:27:16 +0500
Subject: [governance] Members of Nomcom for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>
References: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901112227t7670ca80g3542994f8ceb217a@mail.gmail.com>

Looks good!


-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa



On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Below are the details of the random selection process for the Nomcom
> members. They will join the independent chair (Dr Derrick Cogburn) and start
> their work immediately.
>
> Should anyone wish to check the results, I've posted the details of the
> random process as carried out by Avri Doria below.
>
> The randomly selected members are
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> Should any member drop out details of the replacements are also below
>
> Thank you everyone for participating, and congratulations to the Nomcom
> members.
>
>
>
>
> 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 ltu.se]
> Sent: 11 January 2009 16:47
> To: Ginger Paque
> Cc: Ian Peter
> Subject: the picks
>
> Hi,
>
> and the chosen are:
>
> 17, 31, 14, 23, 26
>
> i.e
>
> 17. Javier Pinzón
> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> 14. Renate Bloem
> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>
> with 11 3, 28, 8, and 7 as the next 5 should you need to go further
> through the list for any reason (such as unavailability of one of the
> selected five):
>
> 11. Adam Peake
> 3.  Philippe Dam
> 28. Asif Kabani
> ...
>
>
> ----
>
> And the gory details:
>
> Drawn seed on 10 Jan 2008
>
> http://www.lotto.ie/  1 9 15 19 23 32
> http://www.national-lottery.co.uk 5 8 11 15 38 45
> http://www.powerball.com  8 10 18 43 56
>
> Run of Program
>
> phoenix-2:rfc3797-process avri$ ./random-order
> Type size of pool:
> warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe.
> (or 'exit' to exit) 32
> Type number of items to be selected:
> (or 'exit' to exit) 10
> Approximately 26.0 bits of entropy needed.
>
> Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 1 9 15 19 23 32
> 1 9 15 19 23 32
> Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 5 8 11 15 38 45
> 5 8 11 15 38 45
> Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> 8 10 18 43 56
> 8 10 18 43 56
> Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> to 16 x.y format reals.
> end
> Key is:
>  1.9.15.19.23.32./5.8.11.15.38.45./8.10.18.43.56./
> index        hex value of MD5        div  selected
>  1  F0CB29A1B77B162E748E18B672F935B0  32  -> 17 <-
>  2  6D2F22E9E58DD2BDF83B5B140A9247D4  31  -> 31 <-
>  3  1AB57B7B61C38D995ACCD29839AEE6E3  30  -> 14 <-
>  4  E155FCF37DE95686C09AA807406CB181  29  -> 23 <-
>  5  4EE267AC47AA47A7978CA0C12C0BA74A  28  -> 26 <-
>  6  BB3ACEB499C5773196A8D992A0F7A08E  27  -> 11 <-
>  7  A35FAE4907062F47EAB4CF01D57FD0E8  26  ->  3 <-
>  8  53636645D119DA4E90911562EFFB98B7  25  -> 28 <-
>  9  136FBF01A3AF6D00645E1E00D89836EE  24  ->  8 <-
> 10  297A6F1A7D5C660F7F498229B3178047  23  ->  7 <-
>
> Done, type any character to exit.
>
>
> On 6 Jan 2009, at 19:32, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>
>> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
>> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
>> 3.  Philippe Dam
>> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
>> 5.  Raquel Gatto
>> 6.  Rafik Dammak
>> 7.  Shaila Mistry
>> 8.  Tricia Wang
>> 9.  Anja Kovacs
>> 10. Hempal Shrestha
>> 11. Adam Peake
>> 12. Ken Lohento
>> 13. Emmanuel Edet
>> 14. Renate Bloem
>> 15. Schombe Baudoin
>> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
>> 17. Javier Pinzón
>> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
>> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
>> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
>> 22. Norbert Klein
>> 23. Rudi Vansnick
>> 24. Omar Kaminski
>> 25. Ray Plzak
>> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
>> 27. Bret Fausett
>> 28. Asif Kabani
>> 29. Dave Kissoondoyal
>> 30. Stephanie Psaila
>> 31. Stuart Hamilton
>> 32. Jeffrey Hunker
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From hempalshrestha at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 02:40:06 2009
From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:25:06 +0545
Subject: [governance] Members of Nomcom for MAG nominations
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70901112227t7670ca80g3542994f8ceb217a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61DE1F1C50734F9C9088672D5F408ED3@IAN>
	 <701af9f70901112227t7670ca80g3542994f8ceb217a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf5d709e0901112340v3167fdc3labeddae27d2717b4@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the results Ian,

Cheers!!!

Hempal Shrestha

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks good!
>
>
> --
>
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> @skBajwa
> Answering all your technology questions
> http://www.askbajwa.com
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
> > Below are the details of the random selection process for the Nomcom
> > members. They will join the independent chair (Dr Derrick Cogburn) and
> start
> > their work immediately.
> >
> > Should anyone wish to check the results, I've posted the details of the
> > random process as carried out by Avri Doria below.
> >
> > The randomly selected members are
> >
> > 17. Javier Pinzón
> > 31. Stuart Hamilton
> > 14. Renate Bloem
> > 23. Rudi Vansnick
> > 26. Siranush Vardanyan
> >
> > Should any member drop out details of the replacements are also below
> >
> > Thank you everyone for participating, and congratulations to the Nomcom
> > members.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 ltu.se]
> > Sent: 11 January 2009 16:47
> > To: Ginger Paque
> > Cc: Ian Peter
> > Subject: the picks
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > and the chosen are:
> >
> > 17, 31, 14, 23, 26
> >
> > i.e
> >
> > 17. Javier Pinzón
> > 31. Stuart Hamilton
> > 14. Renate Bloem
> > 23. Rudi Vansnick
> > 26. Siranush Vardanyan
> >
> > with 11 3, 28, 8, and 7 as the next 5 should you need to go further
> > through the list for any reason (such as unavailability of one of the
> > selected five):
> >
> > 11. Adam Peake
> > 3.  Philippe Dam
> > 28. Asif Kabani
> > ...
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > And the gory details:
> >
> > Drawn seed on 10 Jan 2008
> >
> > http://www.lotto.ie/  1 9 15 19 23 32
> > http://www.national-lottery.co.uk 5 8 11 15 38 45
> > http://www.powerball.com  8 10 18 43 56
> >
> > Run of Program
> >
> > phoenix-2:rfc3797-process avri$ ./random-order
> > Type size of pool:
> > warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe.
> > (or 'exit' to exit) 32
> > Type number of items to be selected:
> > (or 'exit' to exit) 10
> > Approximately 26.0 bits of entropy needed.
> >
> > Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> > Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> > to 16 x.y format reals.
> > 1 9 15 19 23 32
> > 1 9 15 19 23 32
> > Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> > Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> > to 16 x.y format reals.
> > 5 8 11 15 38 45
> > 5 8 11 15 38 45
> > Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> > Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> > to 16 x.y format reals.
> > 8 10 18 43 56
> > 8 10 18 43 56
> > Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line.
> > Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up
> > to 16 x.y format reals.
> > end
> > Key is:
> >  1.9.15.19.23.32./5.8.11.15.38.45./8.10.18.43.56./
> > index        hex value of MD5        div  selected
> >  1  F0CB29A1B77B162E748E18B672F935B0  32  -> 17 <-
> >  2  6D2F22E9E58DD2BDF83B5B140A9247D4  31  -> 31 <-
> >  3  1AB57B7B61C38D995ACCD29839AEE6E3  30  -> 14 <-
> >  4  E155FCF37DE95686C09AA807406CB181  29  -> 23 <-
> >  5  4EE267AC47AA47A7978CA0C12C0BA74A  28  -> 26 <-
> >  6  BB3ACEB499C5773196A8D992A0F7A08E  27  -> 11 <-
> >  7  A35FAE4907062F47EAB4CF01D57FD0E8  26  ->  3 <-
> >  8  53636645D119DA4E90911562EFFB98B7  25  -> 28 <-
> >  9  136FBF01A3AF6D00645E1E00D89836EE  24  ->  8 <-
> > 10  297A6F1A7D5C660F7F498229B3178047  23  ->  7 <-
> >
> > Done, type any character to exit.
> >
> >
> > On 6 Jan 2009, at 19:32, Ginger Paque wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1.  Jeanette Hofmann
> >> 2.  Maja Andjelkovic
> >> 3.  Philippe Dam
> >> 4.  Hanane Boujemi
> >> 5.  Raquel Gatto
> >> 6.  Rafik Dammak
> >> 7.  Shaila Mistry
> >> 8.  Tricia Wang
> >> 9.  Anja Kovacs
> >> 10. Hempal Shrestha
> >> 11. Adam Peake
> >> 12. Ken Lohento
> >> 13. Emmanuel Edet
> >> 14. Renate Bloem
> >> 15. Schombe Baudoin
> >> 16. Thomas Lowenhaupt
> >> 17. Javier Pinzón
> >> 18. Tapani Tarvainen
> >> 19. Tijani Ben Jemaa
> >> 20. Katitza Rodriguez
> >> 21. Jameleddine Khemakhem
> >> 22. Norbert Klein
> >> 23. Rudi Vansnick
> >> 24. Omar Kaminski
> >> 25. Ray Plzak
> >> 26. Siranush Vardanyan
> >> 27. Bret Fausett
> >> 28. Asif Kabani
> >> 29. Dave Kissoondoyal
> >> 30. Stephanie Psaila
> >> 31. Stuart Hamilton
> >> 32. Jeffrey Hunker
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/ad464f19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From lisa at global-partners.co.uk  Mon Jan 12 06:42:36 2009
From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:36 -0000
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised
In-Reply-To: <002e01c97240$c6072440$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <002e01c97240$c6072440$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01399A6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Dear all

 

I’m just catching up on this interesting and important conversation.  Following on from Ginger’s comments, I was interested at the IGF to see gathering momentum around the notion of building an internet governance regime based on values and principles that are derived from human rights standards.  Hopefully the BoR coalition will move forward on this over the course of the year.  These discussions about net neutrality are very relevant, and I agree about the need for a short, powerful statement that could then be backed up by a longer argument/discussion.

 

As I see it, there are a number of values that I think a range of internet stakeholders would subscribe to.  In the FoE project we’ve distilled these down to:

- Accessibility

-Diversity and pluralism

- Participatory and transparent governance

-Openness, creativity and innovativeness.

 

To realise these values, we need policy principles.  Discriminatory access to content would clearly undermine a number of these values.  The policy principle that follows therefore might be: “Networks should be ‘neutral’ in the sense that the flow of content should not be subject to undue or arbitrary discrimination for monetary, cultural or political reasons.  Controls should not be embedded in networks themselves”.

 

I’d be interested in any thoughts that you have on this approach and wording.  Obviously, worded this way, the principle is still very broad and over arching, and the problem of what is meant by “arbitrary” and “undue” still arises.  But that problem is at least in part dealt with by reference back to human rights standards and the values that derive from them.   I wonder if the next step would be to create some kind of directory of scenarios that would explore what it would mean in practice for different stakeholders.  Parminder’s list might be the beginnings of that.

 

In reference to whether we should be using the term “net neutrality”, I think that it is messy and controversial.  The concept of “neutral” is also problematic, as arguing that policy should be rooted in values is in tension with the idea that policy or technology should be neutral.  However, I do think it’s still useful as a signpost term, as people automatically know what kinds of issues are being referred to.

 

All the best,

Lisa

 

 

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: 09 January 2009 09:58
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: 'Ginger Paque'
Subject: RV: [governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised

 

This is a slightly revised version of the email I just sent, after reading Parminder’s post to the BOR list. Changes are in all caps for ease of reading.

 

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

 

“So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it ‘what are the desirable network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?’”

 

“However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue.” (end quote)

 

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The same “brand image and mass behind” the term allow it to be dismissed with allegations of “that’s not what NN means” if we are not precise.

 

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We could do this by outlining the importance of a [REMOVE: rights] RESPONSIBILITY or PRINCIPLES-based framework with a specific reference to support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN  J -- and a practical emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and inclusion enhanced remote participation.

 

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

 

 

 

 

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

 

“So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it ‘what are the desirable network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?’”

 

“However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue.” (end quote)

 

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The same “brand image and mass behind” the term allow it to be dismissed with allegations of “that’s not what NN means” if we are not precise.

 

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We could do this by outlining the importance of a rights-based framework with a specific reference to support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN  J -- and a practical emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and inclusion enhanced remote participation.

 

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

 

 

 

________________________________

De: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 09 de Enero de 2009 01:30 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
CC: 'George Sadowsky'
Asunto: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality

 

Ian

I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle any longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/ question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"

However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue. 

I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle, which in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama administration  is likely to  take up some legislative work on NN very soon - in the early messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise of some real change - and however much I hate a single country determinine global political issues, what gets decided in the Washington's corridors of power during this period may have an irreversible impact on the future of the Internet. 

In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as how Obama himself put it

""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you're getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there." ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )

or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN. 

It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think the Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that requires urgent attention. 

In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year. 

parminder 




Ian Peter wrote: 

I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
 
But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 
 
Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.
 
The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 
 
So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
 
Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
 
So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
 
 
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
 
  

	-----Original Message-----
	From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
	Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
	To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
	Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
	Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
	Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
	 
	All,
	 
	I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
	neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
	ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
	government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
	the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
	and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
	do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
	would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
	inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
	 
	There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
	there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
	subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
	definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
	users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
	agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
	upon implications for the user.
	 
	I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
	ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
	would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
	that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
	languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
	delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
	where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
	ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
	useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
	to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
	packet.
	 
	This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
	 
	Regards,
	 
	George
	 
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	~
	 
	 
	 
	At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
	    

		Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
		the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
		(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
		http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
		      

	0012),
	    

		which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
		(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
		PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
		 
		In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
		if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
		I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
		XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
		manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
		How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
		thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
		political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
		brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
		 
		However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
		NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
		 
		frt rgds
		 
		--c.a.
		 
		      

	-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
	 
	 
	 
	--
	 
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
	2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
	Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
	tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
	Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
	+1.202.370.7734
	SKYPE: sadowsky
	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	     governance at lists.cpsr.org
	To be removed from the list, send any message to:
	     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
	 
	For all list information and functions, see:
	     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	    

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
 
 
  



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3752 (20090108) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3753 (20090109) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3758 (20090112) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/be53a1f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 06:56:44 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:26:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>


Milton

>Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an 
egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want 
to pay more for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even 
if it is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis?

That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red 
herrings' in your email later, below.

I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a 
revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive 
cable TV it can accommodate  unlimited content, in a manner that all of 
it is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which 
puts the control and choice of what she wants to access completely in 
the user's hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard 
at the user, at the cost of other competing content, it compromises 
user's choice, and thus harms her interests. In case of traditional 
media platforms, like print or TV, where the interface-space is 
constrained, some way needs to be found to  squeeze  some content in 
this limited space rather than the other. However, the essential and the 
defining feature of the Internet is that there is no such constraint of 
how much and what all content one can access at the same one-remove, at 
the same level. This is how the Internet fundamentally revolutionizes 
users choice. Now, if some content providers are able to pay and line 
their content up closer to the user relative to other content, without 
her exercise of such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and 
choice. And, consequently, it turns the basic logic of the Internet on 
its head.

I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some 
content closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen by 
her. Can you please tell me what benefit the user gets? The loss, on the 
other hand, is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.

Milton, the underlying difference is that you are using an exclusively 
marketplace framework for the Internet and forget the democratic media 
aspect of the Internet, which is at least as important.  (Though  you 
do  deal with  FoE; but everyone knows that democratic media issues 
extend quite  a lot beyond FoE). I prioritize the democratic media or 
public sphere (as in Habermass) aspect in looking at the Internet. To 
the extent both are important, let us try to include  basic  principles  
of both  in framing the essential  characteristics of the  Internet.

Now for some fun :-).

 > am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of 
nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications

You are needlessly putting words in my mouth.  I have never dismissed 
its relevance.

>You say that the content and application discrimination issues "are easy 
to achieve" and "dont matter much."

Can you show where I said they "dont matter much". Yes, I did say that 
between the two situation (1) there is no content and application 
discrimination at all, even with open-offer differential prices (what I 
have called for) and (2) no discrimination other than based on price 
differentials that are equally open to all,  (which you call for), the 
later is relatively easier to achieve. Do you disagree with this 
proposition?

The VoIP issue detailed by you is very important, and I have always been 
cognizant of its importance. But thanks anyway, it does highlight the 
importance of the NN issue.

>You blithely dismiss the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say, 
"we don't like this web site or that service, we are just going to block 
it." Doesn't matter? >Wow.

Milton, you are being especially difficult. When did I say the above ?????

Parminder


Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Parminder:
>  
> > It is my humble opinion that between these two positions  
> > lies a world of difference, and the real battle will be situated  
> > in this space. I think the Internet as we know  - and as we  
> > cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will be history if Lessig's  
> > version of NN is adopted by the new US administration.  
> > This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that  
> > requires urgent attention.  
>  
> I am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of 
> nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications, 
> which is the _only_ thing important about NN, and elevate the economic 
> equality argument (no one should be able to pay more for better 
> service), which is unimportant to ordinary people and ultimately is 
> impossible to achieve.
>  
> You say that the content and application discrimination issues "are 
> easy to achieve" and "dont matter much." Let me give you a very simple 
> example of why you are mistaken: VoIP.
>  
> In many developing countries, and in quite a few developing countries, 
> the telco has monopoly power and can use it to prevent Internet users 
> from using voice over IP as a substitute for their overpriced 
> telephone service. Imagine then two mobile phone providers. One is NN 
> compliant - you can use VoIP as a substitute for traditional mobile 
> voice service. The other is not, it forces you to use _their_ service 
> and accordingly charges high prices for regular, and especially 
> international and roaming service. We are talking dollars per minute 
> rather than pennies per minute. The amount of surplus profit or 
> revenue generated by the second mobile ISP is, cumulatively, enormous, 
> billions of dollars across the globe. It affects the affordability of 
> service, and the consumers ability to choose qualities, modes and 
> applications that they want. It affects the ability of new companies 
> to enter the market, with all that that implies for innovation and 
> competition.
>  
> I have made a simple case for large benefits caused by the correct 
> conception of NN. Your turn. Please tell me, how does the 
> ordinary user benefit from an egalitarian ideologue telling them and 
> everyone else that if they want to pay more for a higher speed or 
> better service they can't do it, even if it is offered on a 
> nondiscriminatory basis? Tell us all how leveling down the market to 
> the lowest common denominator enhances the public good. 
>  
> Take the same logic to content discrimination. You blithely dismiss 
> the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say, "we don't like this 
> web site or that service, we are just going to block it." Doesn't 
> matter? Wow. That need for liberty of choice and openness is 
> fundamental to the value the internet delivers. By comparison, the 
> equality of price and service you propose is meaningless. Who cares 
> whether i get the same price and service as everyone else, when the 
> content and applications delivered are censorsed and strangled and 
> suppressed?
>  
> Do you argue that no one should be able to buy DSL service because 
> there are people who have dial up and can't afford DSL? sounds to me 
> like that's the basis of your argument. absurd. this is not an NN 
> argument it's an economic egalitarian argument. NN isn;t about that.
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/9bbc9a26/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From lisa at global-partners.co.uk  Mon Jan 12 06:59:59 2009
From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:59:59 -0000
Subject: [BULK]  Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC> <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01399AC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi

 

George wrote:

 

>>“One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos' suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select their provider accordingly.”

 

The Global Network Initiative has gone some way to addressing these issues, but is primarily concerned with situations in which governments seek to restrict private sector service providers.  For example, their implementation guidelines for realizing free expression and privacy principles include:

“Communications With Users
Participating companies will seek to operate in a transparent manner when required by government to remove content or otherwise limit access to information and ideas. To achieve this, participating companies will, unless prohibited by law:

*	Clearly disclose to users the generally applicable laws and policies which require the participating company to remove or limit access to content or restrict communications.
*	Disclose to users in a clear manner the company’s policies and procedures for responding to government demands to remove or limit access to content or restrict communications.
*	Give clear, prominent and timely notice to users when access to specific content has been removed or blocked by the participating company or when communications have been limited by the participating company due to government restrictions. Notice should include the reason for the action and state on whose authority the action was taken.”

Whilst the GNI is focused on how businesses should respond to government demands, I guess the next step would be to build on these commitments to address wider public interest concerns.  Although I guess they’ll need to get over the first hurdle of adhering to what they’ve already signed up to before committing to more.

 

I know that Max Senges and others in the BoR coalition are working on “human readable icons” that could be displayed on websites to reassure users that they adhere to certain privacy standards.  A similar concept might be relevant for certain “neutrality” standards?

 

Lisa

 

From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: 11 January 2009 15:48
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Brian Beaton'; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: [BULK] Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
Importance: Low

 

All,

 

Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.

 

Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because "appropriate" depends upon cultural context.

 

I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police) without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as opinion by opinion.

 

I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what should go on and what should not go on a list.

 

One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos' suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select their provider accordingly.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/a31853df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 07:30:46 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:30:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: [AFCN Members] Tech Memo to Team Obama
Message-ID: <0945A00373074734AA48BBD64215AA73@userPC>

Interesting and important discussion going on in the US re: role of
broadband as part of the overall US (and global?) economic stimulus package
and in the referenced article the role of "Net Neutrality" in that
discussion.

 
MBG
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: members-bounces at afcn.org [mailto:members-bounces at afcn.org] On Behalf
Of Frank Odasz
Sent: January-08-09 7:56 PM
To: members at afcn.org
Subject: [AFCN Members] Tech Memo to Team Obama


Greetings,

This one page article suggests short term innovation to "get broadband
right."  We could also do more in the short term modeling online
instructional innovations to raise awareness and provide Broadband
Entrepreneurship Education in the short term.

Tech Memo to Team Obama
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/technology/techdaily_obama.fortune/

The top-down providers of these networks must partner meaningfully with the
bottom up intended users. And time is short.
I am aware of major inconsistencies as reflected in recent postings on this
listserv. Noting tens of billions are soon to be allocated, what's the
solution for both the supply and demand sides?

It is a matter of who and when that American innovation must reflect honesty
at all levels to create a trusted global information society and economy. We
can start here at home.

Frank
!DSPAM:2676,49663e2a133771508245006! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/bd5efa27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Jan 12 09:09:31 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:09:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <1231700048.496a40509f577@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <4D16340AABB343B1A1246AF65035CC83@userPC> <20081222121216.34F4E67877@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CD5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <49562889.6070905@itforchange.net> <dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com> <49635404.7060200@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com> <49648B63.3050207@itforchange.net> <49660F03.1010108@rits.org.br> <p0620073dc58bc11e1a09@[10.0.1.2]> <20090108174054.D10FEA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <1231700048.496a40509f577@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <5A225B74-200E-4E37-95F1-A29DC2D84436@ras.eu.org>

Dear Nancy and all,

Thanks for providing examples in your developments. They help a lot  
in clarifying a common understanding of concepts and the terminology  
used to formalize them.

Le 11 janv. 09 à 19:54, nancyp at yorku.ca a écrit :

> A neutral network must ensure that data is reachable from anywhere  
> on the
> internet network.

I would say, "...that data is reachable from anywhere on the internet  
network, and with the same accessibility level when placed under the  
same conditions". This might probably be better formulated, but what  
I mean by "same conditions" is same technical (especially bandwidth)  
capacities at both ends: upstream (sender side, e.g. content host)  
and downstream (receiver side, e.g. user access).

> The most famous example of non-neutrality in Canada occurred during  
> the Telus
> labour dispute (2005). (Benkler, 2006)  Telus blocked access to a  
> pro-union
> website by blocking the server on which it was hosted. Researchers  
> at Harvard,
> Cambridge and the University of Toronto, Munk Centre, OpenNet  
> Initiative found
> that the action resulted in an additional 766 unrelated sites also  
> being
> blocked for subscribers. (OpenNet Initiative Bulletin 010, 2005).

I simply don't understand why some people are reframing such an old,  
well known issue of content censorship by technical filtering means,  
in new clothes (a net neutrality issue), thus adding to the overall  
confusion?!
Such "collateral damages" are typical of technical filtering through  
the blocking of an IP address, due to IP sharing practices (a very  
common practice allowing, schematically, to host many virtual  
machines on one actual machine computer).
FYI, an older case occurred in France, back in 2001, when a complaint  
was filed in France against French ISPs who refused to filter a hate  
site hosted in the US (the site was called Front14) without legal  
order. While the case was in process, Renater, the public ISP for all  
universities and research centers took the decision to filter it by  
its IP address, which resulted in blocking access to some 8000  
websites having nothing to do with front14, but simply hosted by the  
same provider (this is documented in French in a press article:  
http://www.transfert.net/a7481). I personally testified in this court  
case on behalf of my organization (see my testimony in French: http:// 
www.iris.sgdg.org/documents/filtrage/memoire-filtrage.html).
Such content filtering practices are well documented in the Council  
of Europe report accompanying a Recommendation adopted by the CoE on  
March 2008, on "measures to promote the respect for freedom of  
expression and information with regard to Internet filters".
Recommendation at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2008)6
Report at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM(2008)37&Ver=add
The report and the recommendation have been prepared by the CoE group  
of specialists on human rights in the information society. As I  
already commented (http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.7/coe-good- 
bad-ugly), this recommendation is "the best text to date that could  
be expected from an intergovernmental institution on this issue,  
breaking off the usual rhetoric of "technical filtering panacea" to  
fight illegal or harmful content."

> Another important example of the unreachability of data took place  
> in March 2008
> at York University. A professor using the on-campus network  
> attempted to reach
> an internet website located somewhere in Europe that was important  
> to his
> research.  After repeated attempts, he still could not reach the  
> site so he
> contacted the IT (Information Technology) department at the  
> university. They
> were mystified why this would be the case. When the professor went  
> home,
> however, he found that he could reach the website. After several  
> days the IT
> department found out that the university’s bandwidth supplier  
> Cogent had
> severed a peering relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe  
> called Telia
> which was the bandwidth network provider for the website that the  
> Professor was
> trying to reach. (Miller, 2008) Cogent did not proactively inform the
> University of the issue and the loss of connectivity.

This is, is my view, a typical net neutrality issue, contrarily to  
the above example. The Cogent vs. Telia case resulted from the  
breaking of the peering agreement between them, thus creating  
unreachability of data for some people. This breach of the peering  
agreement had nothing to do with censorship purposes, but everything  
to do with commercial disputes. Moreover, what makes it a net  
neutrality issue is that this is an arbitrary interference with the  
internet architecture itself (by cutting some routes), rather than a  
dedicated action (even if causing "collateral damages") against a  
particular content, aiming at censoring it.

This latter case is rather easy to understand and to analyze, since  
it caused a completed unreachability of content: a whole portion of  
the internet was entirely unreachable by an other whole portion, due  
to the cut of all possible routes between the two portions. Less easy  
to understand and to analyze are cases which Parminder is trying to  
define. These cases are more subtle, in that data are still reachable  
by all portions of the Internet, while with different ease or comfort  
(e.g. with different speeds). In other words, in Cogent vs. Telia  
case, "data was NOT reachable from anywhere on the internet  
network" (to refer to your definition of a "neutral network"), but in  
the more subtle cases which Parminder are referring to, "data is  
STILL reachable from anywhere on the internet network, BUT NOT with  
the same accessibility level, EVEN THOUGH placed under the same  
conditions" (to refer to my amendment of your definition).

Now the main issue is to better understand what could be such subtle  
cases. We know about, e.g. the Comcast vs. BitTorrent case. Could  
anyone give other examples of such cases in order to clarify the  
issue? Does anyone know of any contract which limits, or degrades,  
access for some applications or services? I do know that some ISPs  
forbids some protocols, typically those ISPs which are also mobile  
telecom operators forbids P2P and VOIP traffic in their mobile  
internet access offers, or those cable companies that forbids IPTV  
traffic: this is indeed a net neutrality issue, but one causing the  
total reachability of data when transmitted through these protocols,  
not a different accessibility level by artificially degradating  
performances.

While breaches of net neutrality might indeed lead to censorship, or  
more precisely to dominance of some kind of content (mainstream) over  
others (alternative, independent, non commercial, whatever you call  
it). But this is definitely different from targetted censorship of  
specific content (even with "collateral damages"). This difference is  
fundamental because each case has different causes and implications,  
and is to be dealt with differently in terms of legislation/ 
regulation, if only because the involved actors to be regulated are  
not necessarily the same: in net neutrality cases, the main actor of  
net neutrality violation is the network operator (carriage provider),  
while in content censorship cases the main actor is the ISP (access  
or hosting provider). Even if a same company could operate as both  
network operator and ISP, the regulation addresses a given function.  
In one case (net neutrality), it's a commercial/competition issue,  
while in the other (censorship), it's exclusively a civil rights  
issue. I'm not ignoring that a commercial issue might have  
consequences on the full benefit of civil rights (e.g. free speech  
llimitations) and that this should be taken into account when  
analyzing a given situation, but still, the situation should be  
addressed differently, and this involves different legislation corpus  
in each case.

> Reachability is a net neutrality question. The policy concept of  
> common carriage
> evolved into net neutrality through deregulation in the context of  
> a transition
> from analog to digital communications. Unreachability of internet  
> data may be
> due to geo-political factors, uncontrollable technical reasons as  
> well as human
> error, but unreachability due to hidden arbitrariness in commercial  
> peering is
> unacceptable.

Fully agree, be they hidden or not BTW, and provided that we address  
not only unreachability but also degraded reachability.

> The problem of the lack of transparency in commercial internet
> interconnection is largely a US problem as the US is the main  
> battleground for
> carriers refusing peering.

Maybe the main, but certainly not the only one, as vertical  
integration is also increasing elsewhere.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 09:15:14 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:15:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder,

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Milton
>
>>Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an
>> egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want to
>> pay more for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even if it
>> is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis?
>
> That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red
> herrings' in your email later, below.
>
> I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a
> revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive
> cable TV it can accommodate  unlimited content, in a manner that all of it
> is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which puts the
> control and choice of what she wants to access completely in the user's
> hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard at the user,
> at the cost of other competing content, it compromises user's choice, and
> thus harms her interests. In case of traditional media platforms, like print
> or TV, where the interface-space is constrained, some way needs to be found
> to  squeeze  some content in this limited space rather than the other.
> However, the essential and the defining feature of the Internet is that
> there is no such constraint of how much and what all content one can access
> at the same one-remove, at the same level. This is how the Internet
> fundamentally revolutionizes users choice. Now, if some content providers
> are able to pay and line their content up closer to the user relative to
> other content, without her exercise of such a choice, it obviously
> constraints her freedom and choice.

Now that's just silly.  If someone (Akamai/Google/Yahoo) were to
deploy an edge cache here in Kampala that would merely give the
enduser a better experience, it would NOT mean that the enduser would
be unable to choose to view content NOT available from that cache.
Number of hops to a CDN (or webserver of any kind) has nothing to do
with a network operator discriminating against a content provider that
may offer competing content to that of the network operator (which is
what you are against, I think).

 And, consequently, it turns the basic
> logic of the Internet on its head.

no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet.  User types in a url, DNS
resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered over x
networks.  making x a smaller number is good for everyone.

>
> I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some content
> closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen by her. Can
> you please tell me what benefit the user gets?

Well as a development issue, if "she" is in most of the developing
world it brings "her' up to par with users in NA, the EU and other
well connected parts of the world.

Would you rather have this:

>tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1   278 ms    29 ms    29 ms  41.220.7.161
  2    14 ms    12 ms    16 ms  41.220.2.65
  3   117 ms    30 ms    16 ms  217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
[217.212.242.45]
  4    39 ms    54 ms    18 ms  41.220.12.225
  5    66 ms    19 ms    36 ms  41.220.12.41
  6   161 ms    33 ms    23 ms  41.220.12.49
  7   220 ms    64 ms    18 ms  if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
  8    47 ms    29 ms    27 ms  196.0.0.37
  9    89 ms    34 ms    69 ms  196.0.0.213
 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 11   688 ms   702 ms   707 ms  213.255.197.237
 12   751 ms   716 ms   889 ms  hsrp.gw.sky-vision.net [217.194.158.17]
 13   832 ms   725 ms   710 ms  GI0-1.gw1.dcm.sky-vision.net [213.255.203.1]
 14   661 ms   680 ms   660 ms  PO2-0.gw2.nyc.sky-vision.net [213.255.219.38]
 15     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 16  1260 ms   760 ms     *     209.85.255.68
 17   720 ms   952 ms   724 ms  216.239.46.227
 18   745 ms   756 ms   708 ms  72.14.232.141
 19   812 ms   737 ms   779 ms  209.85.243.117
 20   783 ms   752 ms   819 ms  209.85.248.129
 21     *      945 ms     *     216.239.46.200
 22   880 ms   818 ms   755 ms  64.233.174.97
 23   758 ms   757 ms   803 ms  209.85.251.153
 24     *      806 ms   850 ms  74.125.31.2
 25   771 ms   774 ms   807 ms  cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]

Trace complete.

OR something more like this:

Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1   278 ms    29 ms    29 ms  41.220.7.161
  2    14 ms    12 ms    16 ms  41.220.2.65
  3   117 ms    30 ms    16 ms  217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
[217.212.242.45]
  4    39 ms    54 ms    18 ms  41.220.12.225
  5    66 ms    19 ms    36 ms  41.220.12.41
  6   161 ms    33 ms    23 ms  41.220.12.49
  7   220 ms    64 ms    18 ms  if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
  8    47 ms    29 ms    27 ms  196.0.0.37
  9   771 ms   774 ms   807 ms  cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]


Would you rather people in the developing world have higher latency
relative to folks in the more developed bits of the planet?

Would you rather end users have this:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping google.com

Pinging google.com [209.85.171.100] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=814ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=770ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=232

Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 718ms, Maximum = 814ms, Average = 756ms

or something like this (where it is likely a Google cache will be
deployed soon):
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping mtn.co.ug

Pinging mtn.co.ug [212.88.97.22] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 212.88.97.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 134ms, Average = 70ms


The loss, on the other hand,
> is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.

It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website, then that
website is delivered via the best effort Internet.  If she happens to
choose a website that is cached locally, the website is delivered via
the best effort Internet, only in fewer hops, and therefore "she" has
a better user experience.

This was discussed at length at the UG and EA IGFs as an African IG
issue.  We WANT more edge and local caches.  Our brothers in Nairobi
have root server instances, an Akamai server AND a Google cache.  That
means that the networks connected to them ALL have access to cached
content, which gives users better experiences, but also saves them
money, as the content is only downloaded to EAfrica once and
distributed from there to users.  This brings the cost of connectivity
down for all.

In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually
taken a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.

<pissing match twixt you and Milton snipped>

-- 
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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Jan 12 10:02:36 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:02:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496B5B8C.7020802@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
> wrote:

>> I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a 
>> revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say 
>> interactive cable TV it can accommodate unlimited content,
But not unlimited traffic. Congestion at the last mile or on cables
to Africa is an issue. Of course people can buy gaginozillionbytes of
server space and put stuff on it, but it can not be delivered all at once.
This is the network issue, and this is what we should discuss here.

>> in a manner that all of it is accessible to the user at exactly the 
>> same level and ease,
Again: Fox News can buy more upstream bandwidth than mom and pop. What's
the issue with this? Is there any?
(I thought we were beyond this point already...?)

>> which puts the control and choice of what she wants to access 
>> completely in the user's hand.
Of course not. If a streaming video server only allows 1000 connections,
and I get in line as number 1001, I have no control over this. ;-)

>> However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard at the user,
>> 
Define "push ones content extra hard at the user", please. This reminds me
of DDOS attacks, but I guess it's not what you mean. ;-)

>> at the cost of other competing content,
Define this too, please.

>> Now, if some content providers are able to pay and line their content
>>  up closer to the user relative to other content, without her 
>> exercise of such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and 
>> choice.

McTim schrieb:
> Now that's just silly.
Agree. Thanks for the illustrations, McTim!

> We WANT more edge and local caches.  Our brothers in Nairobi have root
> server instances, an Akamai server AND a Google cache.  That means that
> the networks connected to them ALL have access to cached content, which
> gives users better experiences, but also saves them money, as the
> content is only downloaded to EAfrica once and distributed from there
> to users.  This brings the cost of connectivity down for all.
It is even better for people in North America or Europe, because it frees
up Google's servers there AND at the same time frees up backbone bandwidth
there. So even users outside of Africa benefit from this.

> In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually taken
> a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.
Interesting twist. ;-)

I still have the feeling that your argument is more serious than it looks
at first sight, Parminder. But I am afraid you have to define it more
precisely, especially in technical terms.
(It reminds me of the NWICO debate, but with the internet, the story is
really different I think. Especially because there is no fundamental
scarcity of offering content by anybody, as you mentioned. But I leave it
up to you to explain better what you mean yourself.)

> <pissing match twixt you and Milton snipped>
Thanks!

Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Jan 12 10:55:01 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:55:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 janv. 09 à 15:15, McTim a écrit :

> Parminder,
>
>  And, consequently, it turns the basic
>> logic of the Internet on its head.
>
> no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet.  User types in a url, DNS
> resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered over x
> networks.  making x a smaller number is good for everyone.

yes, definitely, provided that x is not only smaller for everyone but  
also smaller for any web page accessed by the same person. Otherwise,  
people will access only (or mainly) the content that is best (lest  
costly) accessed.
Although this is entirely different from a technical point of view,  
it's conceptually the same problem with google results appearing on  
the first page vs. those appearing on the 30th page, with the same  
query. Who would bother checking all 29 result pages before reaching  
the potentially alternative views provided on the 30th page? Note  
that this 30th page result is not only still technically reachable,  
but also quickly and directly accessible if I decide, say, that as a  
matter of principle I would always give some privilege to the results  
appearing on the 30th page instead of relying on google search  
algorithms. In case we want to make a better analogy, then we should  
suppose that one can only access the 30th pages results after having  
gone through the 29 previous pages. Who wouldn't give up far before  
reaching the 30th page? (and actually, as studies have shown,  
everyone does..).

> In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually
> taken a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.

actually, you might yourself legitimize a "double penalty" for people  
in developing countries: not only Internet access is more expensive  
and cumbersome in general, but also, with such caching, there is less  
capacity of choice between mainstream content (whose provider can  
afford expensive caching systems in these countries) and alternative  
content, even though provided by the NGO next to your door.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Jan 12 11:14:26 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:14:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01399AC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC> <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01399AC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <496B6C62.2080102@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Lisa Horner schrieb:
> I know that Max Senges and others in the BoR coalition are working on
> “human readable icons” that could be displayed on websites to reassure
> users that they adhere to certain privacy standards.
FYI: This project has been take over by the privacy coalition, Max was
just the incubator.

> A similar concept
> might be relevant for certain “neutrality” standards?

In both cases, the problem is not the icons, but their meaning. It is more
complex than icons for creative commons, at least. But an idea to keep in
mind.

The problem, though, could be that if choice is not available or
governments impose differential treatment of different content, the icons
are of not much help for the user. So I would favour for our work here to
come up with our list of principles for the /best/ traffic treatment and
try to make it binding (or as an IGF recommendation) and not leave it
completely to the "market". If we manage to do that, maybe the icon for
adhering to these best principles could be given as a "seal" or so.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Jan 12 11:37:25 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:37:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com> <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <496B71C5.1020608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Meryem Marzouki schrieb:
> actually, you might yourself legitimize a "double penalty" for people in
> developing countries: not only Internet access is more expensive and
> cumbersome in general, but also, with such caching, there is less
> capacity of choice between mainstream content (whose provider can afford
> expensive caching systems in these countries) and alternative content,
> even though provided by the NGO next to your door.

The choice is still there, of course, it's only that the chached content
is delivered faster than the local NGO content - which it had probably
been without caching anyway because of better upstream connectivity etc.

Edge caching might also be even better for development: If my ISP does not
have to pay as much for expensive interconnection fees as he used to do
before, then he can save money and (hopefully) invest in more local
bandwidth, lower prices, or provide better hosting services for local NGOs
and businesses.

(This just for the record and the intellectual fun of this discussion.
Seriously, I think this edge caching debate is not what really should
concern us. Anybody should have the right to buy a server and connect it
to the internet anywhere, provided she can pay for it, right? The only
issue that could arise here is if an edge caching deal by, say, Google
would explicitly prohibit the caching / co-locating ISP from entering into
the same deal with other search engines or content providers. We all agree
we don't want that, and btw this is also what Lessig has been saying all
along.)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 11:37:31 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:37:31 +0300
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
	 <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901120837h7c954682h59f848e80825d7d8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 12 janv. 09 à 15:15, McTim a écrit :
>
>> Parminder,
>>
>>  And, consequently, it turns the basic
>>>
>>> logic of the Internet on its head.
>>
>> no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet.  User types in a url, DNS
>> resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered over x
>> networks.  making x a smaller number is good for everyone.
>
> yes, definitely, provided that x is not only smaller for everyone but also
> smaller for any web page accessed by the same person.

Now you are talking about something that would be possible to
engineer, but would cost many billions of Euros to implement and
monitor.  It's completely out of the question IMHO.  It would require
mandatory edge and squid caches at every ISP, no matter how small.


 Otherwise, people will
> access only (or mainly) the content that is best (lest costly) accessed.

That doesn't follow at all.  People will access the content they want,
just as they do now.  Some of that content will come to them faster if
cached, just as it does now (You can access a page hosted in France
faster than you can access a page hosted here in Africa).

> Although this is entirely different from a technical point of view, it's
> conceptually the same problem with google results appearing on the first
> page vs. those appearing on the 30th page, with the same query.

Isn't it that "people will access only (or mainly) the content that is
best" for them, thus they choose Google or Yahoo or whatever search
engine they prefer.

Who would
> bother checking all 29 result pages before reaching the potentially
> alternative views provided on the 30th page? Note that this 30th page result
> is not only still technically reachable, but also quickly and directly
> accessible if I decide, say, that as a matter of principle I would always
> give some privilege to the results appearing on the 30th page instead of
> relying on google search algorithms. In case we want to make a better
> analogy, then we should suppose that one can only access the 30th pages
> results after having gone through the 29 previous pages. Who wouldn't give
> up far before reaching the 30th page? (and actually, as studies have shown,
> everyone does..).
>

If they chose another search engine, they would get different results
(or perhaps the same results ordered differently). Still the freedom
to choose is there.

>> In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually
>> taken a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.
>
> actually, you might yourself legitimize a "double penalty" for people in
> developing countries: not only Internet access is more expensive and
> cumbersome in general, but also, with such caching, there is less capacity
> of choice between mainstream content (whose provider can afford expensive
> caching systems in these countries) and alternative content, even though
> provided by the NGO next to your door.

nope, same capacity of choice exists, despite the number of people who
may choose cached content.

As an experiment, I just tried to view the content of the NGO which is
my next door neighbor.  I ran a Google query for "Cesvi"at the same
time as I typed in cesvi.org (a guess as to the domain name).  Google
lost in terms of speed (perhaps because of a squid cache?), I am
viewing the content via the direct surfing, not via Google.

-- 
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  Mon Jan 12 12:09:31 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:09:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC> <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations. 

Starting perhaps with: 
1)"not discarding messages without informing the user," 
2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and 
3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery policies are."  

With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP & user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at describing what a personal SLA should cover.

Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.

I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be useful. 

Lee




-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton'; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
 
All,

Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and 
without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.

Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am 
hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because 
"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.

I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards 
of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing 
the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police) 
without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the 
details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as 
opinion by opinion.

I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate 
such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around 
the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what 
should go on and what should not go on a list.

One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their 
delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user 
can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos' 
suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there 
exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one 
ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it 
will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select 
their provider accordingly.

BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without 
ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different 
definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term, 
I think that's a good thing.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>Michael
>
>>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network 
>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to 
>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a 
>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that 
>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages, 
>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "
>
>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and 
>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies 
>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately 
>manipulated.
>
>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO 
>they come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what 
>constitutes  inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN). 
>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of 
>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then 
>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if 
>found violating. I dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.
>
>A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in 
>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are 
>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such 
>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal 
>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of 
>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being 
>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some 
>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and 
>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the 
>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.
>
>To quote again from Obama's technology doc
>
>"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to 
>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and 
>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not 
>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that 
>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote 
>in my previous email)
>
>Parminder
>
>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>>I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
>>pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
>>value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>
>>It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
>>definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
>>term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
>>on transient technical capacities and designs.
>>
>>The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
>>governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
>>that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
>>"public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
>>something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
>>the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
>>develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
>>araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
>>on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
>>so on.
>>
>>The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
>>have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
>>management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
>>local private, group and public interests.
>>
>>If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
>>it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
>>this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
>>competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
>>kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>>
>>MBG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: George Sadowsky 
>>[<mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org; 
>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>isolatedn at gmail.com
>>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>>do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>>would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>>inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>
>>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>>upon implications for the user.
>>
>>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>>would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>>that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>>languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>>where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>>ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>>useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>>to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>>packet.
>>
>>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>><http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>t00012),
>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>www.politics.org.br). If you can 
>>>manage Portuguese, please download the
>>>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>
>>>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>>>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>>>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
>>>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
>>>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
>>>handles (or lack
>>>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>
>>>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>
>>>frt rgds
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/8c4ac989/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 12:14:41 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:44:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496B7A81.10205@itforchange.net>


McTim

I am completely unable to understand why are accusing me of speaking 
against edge caching, when i have not mentioned a word regarding it. In 
fact, when Milton in his email dt 7th Jan asked if I was speaking 
against edge catching, I specifically responded in my email dt 8th  that 
I was *not*.

I have written at least 4-5 times in the last few days that I am *only* 
speaking against price-differentiated QoS/ speed of transmission/ 
delivery of content, which in my view violates NN.

I also asked you and Ralf specifically if you are for it or against it. 
So I ask it again. (and pl do respond)

Since you are likely to off-hand conclude that my statements do not 
achieve your standards of technical discourse, I can re-frame my  
question in the language of Prof Felten whose NN typology you yourself 
forwarded to me ( 
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality 
), which therefore I can expect you to understand. Pl indicate whether 
you accept his 'flavour' 3 as an NN principle  - which is 'Net 
Neutrality as Content Nondiscrimination" - vis a vis his 'flavour' 2 - 
which is 'Net Neutrality as Nonexclusionary Business Practices'*.* (see 
the linked article for explanations.) *

*Now if this helps further understanding I may tell you that Milton (and 
Lessig) supports 'flavour' or type 2 above as constituting NN, but is 
against type 3 (Milton, you can pl confirm this.)  I dont think I can be 
clearer than this.

 > It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website, then that 
website is delivered via the best effort Internet.

Perfect. I am just asking for that to be ensured. However Milton and 
Lessig say that it is ok, if the website she chooses doesn't pay for 
higher QoS and another one does, her preferred website is *not* 
delivered via 'best effort' but via via second or third or n-th "best 
effort", which can actually be so low in the stack to be - absolutely or 
relatively - quite a bad effort.

I can though judge that you got confused by a quick - and, habitually, 
dismissive - reading of the following sentence I wrote

" Now, if some content providersare able to pay and line their content 
up closer to the user relative to other content, without her exercise of 
such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and choice."

This is not at all about edge caching. Please read it in the specific 
context I have built, of the picture of Internet as a democratic media. 
It is meant somewhat figuratively, as content which is pushed harder at 
the user through higher-price better-QoS than the rest of the content 
she receives. I wrote the above sentence after I drew a picture of the 
Internet where one is assured *equal relationship to* all the content 
present on the Internet and whereby how price-differentiated QoS 
violates this equality of relationship. It is this sense  I meant  
higher QoS content as being pushed harder at the user, and spoke of it 
figuratively as lined closer to the user, *relegating the rest of the 
content*. It is in this way that the user's free choice is constrained.

parminder



McTim wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>> Milton
>>
>>     
>>> Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an
>>> egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want to
>>> pay more for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even if it
>>> is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis?
>>>       
>> That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red
>> herrings' in your email later, below.
>>
>> I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a
>> revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive
>> cable TV it can accommodate  unlimited content, in a manner that all of it
>> is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which puts the
>> control and choice of what she wants to access completely in the user's
>> hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard at the user,
>> at the cost of other competing content, it compromises user's choice, and
>> thus harms her interests. In case of traditional media platforms, like print
>> or TV, where the interface-space is constrained, some way needs to be found
>> to  squeeze  some content in this limited space rather than the other.
>> However, the essential and the defining feature of the Internet is that
>> there is no such constraint of how much and what all content one can access
>> at the same one-remove, at the same level. This is how the Internet
>> fundamentally revolutionizes users choice. Now, if some content providers
>> are able to pay and line their content up closer to the user relative to
>> other content, without her exercise of such a choice, it obviously
>> constraints her freedom and choice.
>>     
>
> Now that's just silly.  If someone (Akamai/Google/Yahoo) were to
> deploy an edge cache here in Kampala that would merely give the
> enduser a better experience, it would NOT mean that the enduser would
> be unable to choose to view content NOT available from that cache.
> Number of hops to a CDN (or webserver of any kind) has nothing to do
> with a network operator discriminating against a content provider that
> may offer competing content to that of the network operator (which is
> what you are against, I think).
>
>  And, consequently, it turns the basic
>   
>> logic of the Internet on its head.
>>     
>
> no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet.  User types in a url, DNS
> resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered over x
> networks.  making x a smaller number is good for everyone.
>
>   
>> I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some content
>> closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen by her. Can
>> you please tell me what benefit the user gets?
>>     
>
> Well as a development issue, if "she" is in most of the developing
> world it brings "her' up to par with users in NA, the EU and other
> well connected parts of the world.
>
> Would you rather have this:
>
>   
>> tracert google.com
>>     
>
> Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
>   1   278 ms    29 ms    29 ms  41.220.7.161
>   2    14 ms    12 ms    16 ms  41.220.2.65
>   3   117 ms    30 ms    16 ms  217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
> [217.212.242.45]
>   4    39 ms    54 ms    18 ms  41.220.12.225
>   5    66 ms    19 ms    36 ms  41.220.12.41
>   6   161 ms    33 ms    23 ms  41.220.12.49
>   7   220 ms    64 ms    18 ms  if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
>   8    47 ms    29 ms    27 ms  196.0.0.37
>   9    89 ms    34 ms    69 ms  196.0.0.213
>  10     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>  11   688 ms   702 ms   707 ms  213.255.197.237
>  12   751 ms   716 ms   889 ms  hsrp.gw.sky-vision.net [217.194.158.17]
>  13   832 ms   725 ms   710 ms  GI0-1.gw1.dcm.sky-vision.net [213.255.203.1]
>  14   661 ms   680 ms   660 ms  PO2-0.gw2.nyc.sky-vision.net [213.255.219.38]
>  15     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>  16  1260 ms   760 ms     *     209.85.255.68
>  17   720 ms   952 ms   724 ms  216.239.46.227
>  18   745 ms   756 ms   708 ms  72.14.232.141
>  19   812 ms   737 ms   779 ms  209.85.243.117
>  20   783 ms   752 ms   819 ms  209.85.248.129
>  21     *      945 ms     *     216.239.46.200
>  22   880 ms   818 ms   755 ms  64.233.174.97
>  23   758 ms   757 ms   803 ms  209.85.251.153
>  24     *      806 ms   850 ms  74.125.31.2
>  25   771 ms   774 ms   807 ms  cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]
>
> Trace complete.
>
> OR something more like this:
>
> Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
>   1   278 ms    29 ms    29 ms  41.220.7.161
>   2    14 ms    12 ms    16 ms  41.220.2.65
>   3   117 ms    30 ms    16 ms  217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
> [217.212.242.45]
>   4    39 ms    54 ms    18 ms  41.220.12.225
>   5    66 ms    19 ms    36 ms  41.220.12.41
>   6   161 ms    33 ms    23 ms  41.220.12.49
>   7   220 ms    64 ms    18 ms  if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
>   8    47 ms    29 ms    27 ms  196.0.0.37
>   9   771 ms   774 ms   807 ms  cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]
>
>
> Would you rather people in the developing world have higher latency
> relative to folks in the more developed bits of the planet?
>
> Would you rather end users have this:
>
> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping google.com
>
> Pinging google.com [209.85.171.100] with 32 bytes of data:
>
> Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=232
> Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=814ms TTL=232
> Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=770ms TTL=232
> Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=232
>
> Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
>     Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
>     Minimum = 718ms, Maximum = 814ms, Average = 756ms
>
> or something like this (where it is likely a Google cache will be
> deployed soon):
> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping mtn.co.ug
>
> Pinging mtn.co.ug [212.88.97.22] with 32 bytes of data:
>
> Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=121
> Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=121
> Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=121
> Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121
>
> Ping statistics for 212.88.97.22:
>     Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
>     Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 134ms, Average = 70ms
>
>
> The loss, on the other hand,
>   
>> is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.
>>     
>
> It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website, then that
> website is delivered via the best effort Internet.  If she happens to
> choose a website that is cached locally, the website is delivered via
> the best effort Internet, only in fewer hops, and therefore "she" has
> a better user experience.
>
> This was discussed at length at the UG and EA IGFs as an African IG
> issue.  We WANT more edge and local caches.  Our brothers in Nairobi
> have root server instances, an Akamai server AND a Google cache.  That
> means that the networks connected to them ALL have access to cached
> content, which gives users better experiences, but also saves them
> money, as the content is only downloaded to EAfrica once and
> distributed from there to users.  This brings the cost of connectivity
> down for all.
>
> In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually
> taken a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.
>
> <pissing match twixt you and Milton snipped>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/b03f906a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Jan 12 12:29:33 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:29:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901120837h7c954682h59f848e80825d7d8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com> <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0901120837h7c954682h59f848e80825d7d8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2A01D3EF-90FE-4A25-825D-28E37347E2A2@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:37, McTim a écrit :

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Meryem Marzouki  
> <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Le 12 janv. 09 à 15:15, McTim a écrit :
>>
>>> Parminder,
>>>
>>>  And, consequently, it turns the basic
>>>>
>>>> logic of the Internet on its head.
>>>
>>> no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet.  User types in a url, DNS
>>> resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered  
>>> over x
>>> networks.  making x a smaller number is good for everyone.
>>
>> yes, definitely, provided that x is not only smaller for everyone  
>> but also
>> smaller for any web page accessed by the same person.
>
> Now you are talking about something that would be possible to
> engineer, but would cost many billions of Euros to implement and
> monitor.  It's completely out of the question IMHO.  It would require
> mandatory edge and squid caches at every ISP, no matter how small.

True and indeed, this is out of reach. That was simply to say that  
this couldn't be satisfactory for everyone, but only for those  
satisfied with access to mainstream content. Since we all agree that  
this is out of reasonable reach (e.g. there will always be, e.g.,  
Akamai users willing and able to pay for this caching services),  
let's concentrate on what is within reasonable reach, i.e. avoiding  
those artificial intervention of some routes that makes them wider  
for some at the expense of others, or even that cuts some of them: a  
"must (neutrally) carry" obligation. The whole debate now on this  
list if to identify: (1) on which actors this obligation should be  
reasonably put and, correlatively (2) which content/data this should  
reasonably concern.

>  Otherwise, people will
>> access only (or mainly) the content that is best (lest costly)  
>> accessed.
>
> That doesn't follow at all.  People will access the content they want,
> just as they do now.  Some of that content will come to them faster if
> cached, just as it does now (You can access a page hosted in France
> faster than you can access a page hosted here in Africa).

My whole point is that the content which is easier to access will be  
the content read by most people. This is a democracy issue, an old  
debate in the media sphere (and, Ralf, yes, it's normal that this  
reminds you the old NWICO debat: fundamentally, the same issue is at  
stake, although taking a new form, because of a new medium and all  
the technical consequences, starting from the theoretical absence of  
the resource scarcity problem).

>> Although this is entirely different from a technical point of  
>> view, it's
>> conceptually the same problem with google results appearing on the  
>> first
>> page vs. those appearing on the 30th page, with the same query.
>
> Isn't it that "people will access only (or mainly) the content that is
> best" for them, thus they choose Google or Yahoo or whatever search
> engine they prefer.

If you know exactly which, say, website you want to access, then yes.  
If you don't, and you want to access information about something,  
then you might only (meaning: in reasonable access conditions) get  
one-sided reports.

> Who would
>> bother checking all 29 result pages before reaching the potentially
>> alternative views provided on the 30th page? Note that this 30th  
>> page result
>> is not only still technically reachable, but also quickly and  
>> directly
>> accessible if I decide, say, that as a matter of principle I would  
>> always
>> give some privilege to the results appearing on the 30th page  
>> instead of
>> relying on google search algorithms. In case we want to make a better
>> analogy, then we should suppose that one can only access the 30th  
>> pages
>> results after having gone through the 29 previous pages. Who  
>> wouldn't give
>> up far before reaching the 30th page? (and actually, as studies  
>> have shown,
>> everyone does..).
>>
>
> If they chose another search engine, they would get different results
> (or perhaps the same results ordered differently). Still the freedom
> to choose is there.

We might have a different understanding of what 'freedom' is.

>>> As an experiment, I just tried to view the content of the NGO  
>>> which is
> my next door neighbor.  I ran a Google query for "Cesvi"at the same
> time as I typed in cesvi.org (a guess as to the domain name).  Google
> lost in terms of speed (perhaps because of a squid cache?), I am
> viewing the content via the direct surfing, not via Google.

:) You might also have tried to knock at their door, sit at their  
office and had a chat with them: probably even better results, taking  
into account the cup of coffee they would certainly have given you..
Now, try another experiment with the next-next door NGO, i.e. one  
located in the African country closest to Uganda and showing average  
intra-Africa bandwidth.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Mon Jan 12 12:46:37 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:46:37 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is
In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC>
 <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]>
 <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06200791c591309f406d@[10.0.1.2]>

Lee,

You're right in that this information should be included in a 
customer (end user) level SLA.  And in fact it might be there, even 
in my SLA with my provider.  The problem is that the agreements I've 
seen like many software license agreements, are long and complex, and 
the policies may in fact change over time without the ISP updating 
any of its SLAs.

A number of years ago there was a major simplification of the 
language used in insurance contracts in the United States, where 
legalese was abandoned in favor of a much simpler form of expressing 
the terms of the contracts.  It made a big difference in the consumer 
space.   What I'm suggesting is that the same change occur with 
existing (and non-existent) SLAs, and that  such a policy statement 
be posted and available from every ISP in a simple, easy to read and 
comprehend form, and furthermore that it apply equally to all 
customers in a particular service class.

Only when it is possible for the average user to compare such 
statements across providers will it be possible for customers to 
discriminate in favor of providers whose transmission policies are 
best for them.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:09 PM -0500 1/12/09, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and 
>internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations.
>
>Starting perhaps with:
>1)"not discarding messages without informing the user,"
>2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a 
>legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and
>3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery 
>policies are." 
>
>With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would 
>be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP & 
>user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much 
>info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called 
>for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at 
>the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at 
>describing what a personal SLA should cover.
>
>Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.
>
>I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their 
>customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be 
>useful.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
>Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton'; 
>isolatedn at gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
>All,
>
>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and
>without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.
>
>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am
>hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because
>"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.
>
>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards
>of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing
>the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police)
>without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the
>details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as
>opinion by opinion.
>
>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate
>such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around
>the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what
>should go on and what should not go on a list.
>
>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their
>delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user
>can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'
>suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there
>exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one
>ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it
>will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select
>their provider accordingly.
>
>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without
>ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different
>definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term,
>I think that's a good thing.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>>Michael
>>
>>>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network
>>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
>>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to
>>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a
>>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that
>>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages,
>>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "
>>
>>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and
>>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies
>>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately
>>manipulated.
>>
>>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO
>>they come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what
>>constitutes  inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN).
>>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of
>>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then
>>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if
>>found violating. I dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.
>>
>>A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in
>>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are
>>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such
>>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal
>>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of
>>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being
>>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some
>>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and
>>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the
>>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.
>>
>>To quote again from Obama's technology doc
>>
>>"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to
>>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and
>>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not
>>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that
>>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote
>>in my previous email)
>>
>>Parminder
>>
>>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
>>>pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
>>>value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
>>>definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
>>>term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
>>>on transient technical capacities and designs.
>>>
>>>The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
>>>governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
>>>that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
>  >>"public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
>>>something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
>>>the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
>>>develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
>>>araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
>>>on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
>>>so on.
>>>
>>>The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
>>>have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
>>>management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
>>>local private, group and public interests.
>>>
>>>If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
>>>it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
>>>this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
>>>competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
>>>kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>>>
>>>MBG
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: George Sadowsky
>>>[<mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
>>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>isolatedn at gmail.com
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>>>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>>>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>>>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>>>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>>>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>>>do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>>>would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>>>inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>>
>>>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>>>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>>>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>>>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>>>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>>>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>>>upon implications for the user.
>>>
>>>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>>>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>>>would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>>>that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>>>languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>>>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>>>where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>>>ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>>>useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>>>to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>>>packet.
>>>
>>>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>>>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>>>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>>><http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>>t00012),
>>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>www.politics.org.br). If you can
>  >>>manage Portuguese, please download the
>>>>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>>
>>>>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>>>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>>>>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>>>>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
>>>>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
>>>>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
>>>>handles (or lack
>>>>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>>>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>>>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>>
>>>>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>>>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>>
>>>>frt rgds
>>>>
>>>>--c.a.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 13:03:59 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:03:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] What is
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC> <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <p06200791c591309f406d@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA2@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

George,

I agree the recs must be clear and simply stated. 

Unlike present SLAs/service contracts, which make very few explicit promises to end users. 

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: Mon 1/12/2009 12:46 PM
To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Brian Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: RE: [governance] What is
 
Lee,

You're right in that this information should be included in a 
customer (end user) level SLA.  And in fact it might be there, even 
in my SLA with my provider.  The problem is that the agreements I've 
seen like many software license agreements, are long and complex, and 
the policies may in fact change over time without the ISP updating 
any of its SLAs.

A number of years ago there was a major simplification of the 
language used in insurance contracts in the United States, where 
legalese was abandoned in favor of a much simpler form of expressing 
the terms of the contracts.  It made a big difference in the consumer 
space.   What I'm suggesting is that the same change occur with 
existing (and non-existent) SLAs, and that  such a policy statement 
be posted and available from every ISP in a simple, easy to read and 
comprehend form, and furthermore that it apply equally to all 
customers in a particular service class.

Only when it is possible for the average user to compare such 
statements across providers will it be possible for customers to 
discriminate in favor of providers whose transmission policies are 
best for them.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:09 PM -0500 1/12/09, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and 
>internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations.
>
>Starting perhaps with:
>1)"not discarding messages without informing the user,"
>2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a 
>legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and
>3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery 
>policies are." 
>
>With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would 
>be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP & 
>user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much 
>info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called 
>for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at 
>the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at 
>describing what a personal SLA should cover.
>
>Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.
>
>I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their 
>customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be 
>useful.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
>Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton'; 
>isolatedn at gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
>All,
>
>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and
>without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.
>
>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am
>hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because
>"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.
>
>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards
>of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing
>the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police)
>without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the
>details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as
>opinion by opinion.
>
>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate
>such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around
>the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what
>should go on and what should not go on a list.
>
>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their
>delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user
>can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'
>suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there
>exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one
>ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it
>will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select
>their provider accordingly.
>
>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without
>ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different
>definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term,
>I think that's a good thing.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>>Michael
>>
>>>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network
>>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
>>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to
>>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a
>>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that
>>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages,
>>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "
>>
>>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and
>>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies
>>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately
>>manipulated.
>>
>>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO
>>they come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what
>>constitutes  inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN).
>>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of
>>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then
>>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if
>>found violating. I dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.
>>
>>A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in
>>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are
>>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such
>>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal
>>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of
>>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being
>>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some
>>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and
>>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the
>>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.
>>
>>To quote again from Obama's technology doc
>>
>>"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to
>>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and
>>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not
>>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that
>>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote
>>in my previous email)
>>
>>Parminder
>>
>>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
>>>pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
>>>value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
>>>definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
>>>term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
>>>on transient technical capacities and designs.
>>>
>>>The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
>>>governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
>>>that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
>  >>"public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
>>>something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
>>>the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
>>>develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
>>>araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
>>>on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
>>>so on.
>>>
>>>The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
>>>have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
>>>management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
>>>local private, group and public interests.
>>>
>>>If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
>>>it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
>>>this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
>>>competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
>>>kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>>>
>>>MBG
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: George Sadowsky
>>>[<mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
>>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>isolatedn at gmail.com
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>>>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>>>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>>>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>>>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>>>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>>>do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>>>would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>>>inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>>
>>>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>>>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>>>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>>>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>>>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>>>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>>>upon implications for the user.
>>>
>>>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>>>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>>>would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>>>that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>>>languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>>>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>>>where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>>>ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>>>useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>>>to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>>>packet.
>>>
>>>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>>>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>>>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>>><http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>>t00012),
>>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>www.politics.org.br). If you can
>  >>>manage Portuguese, please download the
>>>>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>>
>>>>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>>>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>>>>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>>>>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
>>>>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
>>>>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
>>>>handles (or lack
>>>>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>>>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>>>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>>
>>>>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>>>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>>
>>>>frt rgds
>>>>
>>>>--c.a.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/34c22cc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 12 13:18:59 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:48:59 -0430
Subject: [governance] What is Transparent and obvious
In-Reply-To: <p06200791c591309f406d@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC> <496973C4.3080809@itforchange.net> <p06200774c58fc284d25f@[10.0.1.2]> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DA0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <p06200791c591309f406d@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <A0902D84A84740AD89DCBF01BB083755@GINGERLAPTOP>


I don't know how the concept George and Lee are discussion can be included,
but I think it is very important. Transparency is not enough: the "rules of
the game" should be known and obvious allowing for informed choice without
what now amounts to "research".

-----Mensaje original-----
De: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 12 de Enero de 2009 01:17 p.m.
Para: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
CC: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Brian Beaton;
isolatedn at gmail.com
Asunto: RE: [governance] What is

Lee,

You're right in that this information should be included in a 
customer (end user) level SLA.  And in fact it might be there, even 
in my SLA with my provider.  The problem is that the agreements I've 
seen like many software license agreements, are long and complex, and 
the policies may in fact change over time without the ISP updating 
any of its SLAs.

A number of years ago there was a major simplification of the 
language used in insurance contracts in the United States, where 
legalese was abandoned in favor of a much simpler form of expressing 
the terms of the contracts.  It made a big difference in the consumer 
space.   What I'm suggesting is that the same change occur with 
existing (and non-existent) SLAs, and that  such a policy statement 
be posted and available from every ISP in a simple, easy to read and 
comprehend form, and furthermore that it apply equally to all 
customers in a particular service class.

Only when it is possible for the average user to compare such 
statements across providers will it be possible for customers to 
discriminate in favor of providers whose transmission policies are 
best for them.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:09 PM -0500 1/12/09, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and 
>internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations.
>
>Starting perhaps with:
>1)"not discarding messages without informing the user,"
>2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a 
>legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and
>3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery 
>policies are." 
>
>With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would 
>be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP & 
>user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much 
>info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called 
>for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at 
>the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at 
>describing what a personal SLA should cover.
>
>Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.
>
>I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their 
>customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be 
>useful.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
>Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton'; 
>isolatedn at gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
>All,
>
>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and
>without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.
>
>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am
>hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because
>"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.
>
>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards
>of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing
>the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police)
>without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the
>details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as
>opinion by opinion.
>
>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate
>such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around
>the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what
>should go on and what should not go on a list.
>
>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their
>delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user
>can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'
>suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there
>exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one
>ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it
>will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select
>their provider accordingly.
>
>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without
>ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different
>definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term,
>I think that's a good thing.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
>
>
>
>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>>Michael
>>
>>>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN
and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible
significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network
>>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
>>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to
>>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a
>>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that
>>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages,
>>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "
>>
>>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and
>>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies
>>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately
>>manipulated.
>>
>>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO
>>they come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what
>>constitutes  inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN).
>>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of
>>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then
>>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if
>>found violating. I dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.
>>
>>A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in
>>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are
>>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such
>>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal
>>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of
>>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being
>>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some
>>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and
>>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the
>>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.
>>
>>To quote again from Obama's technology doc
>>
>>"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to
>>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and
>>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not
>>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that
>>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote
>>in my previous email)
>>
>>Parminder
>>
>>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have
(being
>>>pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
>>>value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>>>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN
and
>>>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible
significance
>>>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
>>>definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
>>>term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will
depend
>>>on transient technical capacities and designs.
>>>
>>>The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
>>>governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and
in
>>>that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet
as a
>  >>"public trust" might not be the direction to look.
Identifying/prescribing
>>>something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example
to
>>>the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
>>>develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making
in
>>>araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are
also
>>>on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on
and
>>>so on.
>>>
>>>The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual
countries
>>>have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires
a
>>>management framework to determine an appropriate balance between
competing
>>>local private, group and public interests.
>>>
>>>If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust"
surely
>>>it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing
of
>>>this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
>>>competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in
some
>>>kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>>>
>>>MBG
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: George Sadowsky
>>>[<mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.n
et]
>>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
Beaton;
>>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>isolatedn at gmail.com
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
>>>neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
>>>ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
>>>government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
>>>the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
>>>and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
>>>do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
>>>would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
>>>inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>>>
>>>There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
>>>there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
>>>subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
>>>definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
>>>users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
>>>agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
>>>upon implications for the user.
>>>
>>>I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
>>>ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
>>>would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
>>>that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
>>>languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
>>>delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
>>>where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
>>>ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
>>>useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
>>>to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
>>>packet.
>>>
>>>This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
>>>>the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
>>>>(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
>>>><http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>>t00012),
>>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>www.politics.org.br). If you can
>  >>>manage Portuguese, please download the
>>>>PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
>>>>
>>>>In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
>>>>if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
>>>>consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
>>>>country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
>>>>reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
>>>>is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
>>>>handles (or lack
>>>>thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
>>>>political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
>>>>brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
>>>>
>>>>However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
>>>>NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
>>>>
>>>>frt rgds
>>>>
>>>>--c.a.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Jan 12 13:38:15 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:38:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496B71C5.1020608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN> <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com> <F2A34DB9-12F9-42F4-8B0F-4FE08B4D7563@ras.eu.org> <496B71C5.1020608@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <2046F23D-3505-4EDC-8A5B-CA07C6E1151E@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:37, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :

> Meryem Marzouki schrieb:
>> actually, you might yourself legitimize a "double penalty" for  
>> people in
>> developing countries: not only Internet access is more expensive and
>> cumbersome in general, but also, with such caching, there is less
>> capacity of choice between mainstream content (whose provider can  
>> afford
>> expensive caching systems in these countries) and alternative  
>> content,
>> even though provided by the NGO next to your door.
>
> [...]
> (This just for the record and the intellectual fun of this discussion.
> Seriously, I think this edge caching debate is not what really should
> concern us. Anybody should have the right to buy a server and  
> connect it
> to the internet anywhere, provided she can pay for it, right? The only
> issue that could arise here is if an edge caching deal by, say, Google
> would explicitly prohibit the caching / co-locating ISP from  
> entering into
> the same deal with other search engines or content providers. We  
> all agree
> we don't want that, and btw this is also what Lessig has been  
> saying all
> along.)

I would put it in a different way: edge caching is unavoidable, since  
those who can afford it will use it and, on the one hand, no one's  
point here is to bottom out access level, on the other hand, no one  
is arguing that we can reasonably reach a situation where every ISP  
in the world will have it implemented or will have its bandwidth  
extended by any other mean). Edge caching is even desirable, in that  
it provides a better access to *some* content for those accessing it,  
as McTim has shown. Finally, it's true that no one is arguing in  
favor of any exclusionary business practice.
However, all this remains hardly satisfactory to some of us, who  
could hardly let this be described as a situation where "freedom of  
choice is guaranteed". That's the whole point about edge caching in  
this discussion, I think.

That being said, the real discussion is indeed not on edge caching,  
but on a "must (neutrally) carry" obligation, where some action could  
reasonably be carried out. And here, there are greatly diverging  
views on this list, as far as I've understood from the ongoing  
discussion.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Jan 12 13:58:59 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:58:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496B7A81.10205@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>	 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com> <496B7A81.10205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <496B92F3.5060501@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Parminder schrieb:

> when Milton in his email dt 7th Jan asked if I was speaking
> against edge catching, I specifically responded in my email dt 8th  that
> I was *not*.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if McTim or I have misunderstood
you here.

> I have written at least 4-5 times in the last few days that I am *only*
> speaking against price-differentiated QoS/ speed of transmission/
> delivery of content, which in my view violates NN.
> 
> I also asked you and Ralf specifically if you are for it or against it.
> So I ask it again. (and pl do respond)
I am sorry I can't give a clear-cut answer (and no, Ed Felton is not
particlarly clear here either, e.g. End-to-End and Content
Nondiscrimination is basically the same, because both implies that ISPs
are not entitled to look into the payload of the packets, but instead just
care about the headers.).

There are several ways to read this. I'll try to distinguish them based on
who would be doing the delivery and discrimination of the content.

1. Downstream ISP

1.1. My downstream ISP is throttling specific services / protocols and
treating others better.

This may be ok if I as the customer can choose it - say, if I don't need
p2p protocols or fast pings and get a better price in return.

But one may want to argue against it in principle, because it includes the
danger that these last mile discriminations make the internet less open
for innovation at the application layer.

-> I am not 100% sure which position to pick, though I lean towards the
latter. In any case, this has to be transparent.

1.2. My downstream ISP has a deal with a specific content provider to
fast-track their packets, or is throttling packets from specific other
sources.

-> This is not what I would like. But again, I don't really see this as a
realistic threat anyway if based on money flows from the content providers.
The real threat here is filtering and censorship based on more or less
arbitrary decisions by the ISP or the government or shady private
governance arrangements.

1.3. My downstream ISP does edge-caching or co-location.
-> This is ok if anybody can get a cache there for the same price.
(Yes, I know you're also ok with it, Parminder. This is just for the sake
of completeness)

2. Upstream ISP

2.1. The upstream ISP of the content provider is connecting him through a
faster pipe than other customers.
-> This is ok as long as anybody can get this deal for the same price.

3. Backbone provider

3.1. The backbone provider is treating traffic differentially based on
from which ISP it comes from, depending on the price he pays.

-> I don't know enough about the technology and the economics of the
peering and interconnection agreements behind all this etc. I guess it is
should be acceptable that you can get faster backbone access for a higher
price.

> *Now if this helps further understanding I may tell you that Milton (and
> Lessig) supports 'flavour' or type 2 above as constituting NN, but is
> against type 3 (Milton, you can pl confirm this.)
As far as I understand Lessig's position, he would also agree to NN as
type 3, "Content Nondiscrimination" (i.e. based on the payload of the
packets), but would allow "Source Discrimination" (i.e. special fasttrack
routing deals, edge caching etc.) if it is nonexclusionary.
Milton?

> I can though judge that you got confused by a quick - and, habitually,
> dismissive - reading of the following sentence I wrote
> 
> " Now, if some content providersare able to pay and line their content
> up closer to the user relative to other content, without her exercise of
> such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and choice."
> 
> This is not at all about edge caching. Please read it in the specific
> context I have built, of the picture of Internet as a democratic media.
> It is meant somewhat figuratively, as content which is pushed harder at
> the user through higher-price better-QoS than the rest of the content
> she receives. I wrote the above sentence after I drew a picture of the
> Internet where one is assured *equal relationship to* all the content
> present on the Internet and whereby how price-differentiated QoS
> violates this equality of relationship. It is this sense  I meant 
> higher QoS content as being pushed harder at the user, and spoke of it
> figuratively as lined closer to the user, *relegating the rest of the
> content*. It is in this way that the user's free choice is constrained.

Thanks for the clarification. Do I understand correctly that this would
roughly be described by my option 1.2 above? In this case, I still don't
see how it would work and that it is a realistic threat, but I would agree
with you that this is not desirable.


I hope this all makes clear that there are several dimensions to the
discrimination of packets - who is doing it, based on which kind of
agreements and choice, is it done based on traffic sources, on content of
packets, on protocols, etc. So a straightforward answer is at least tricky.

I suggest we try to prioritize the different dimensions along the severity
of their limitations on user freedom and choice. There are surely some
kinds that we probably would not like to see at all (e.g. censorship based
on content or traffic source), while for others, we may at least want to
ask for transparency and user choice (e.g. throttling of specific
protocols), because it seems difficult to find agreement among us for them.

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From david.souter at runbox.com  Mon Jan 12 16:49:04 2009
From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:49:04 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Interview
In-Reply-To: <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>
References: <136AEA72BF9D44DAA95E19DDA9CCA256@IAN>
 <4966E7C5.7060407@itforchange.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <496B2FFC.3030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1LMUee-0004Ou-SG@fenris.runbox.com>

Hello, Parminder:

Are we still OK for interview Tuesday?

David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jan 13 01:48:52 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:18:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
Message-ID: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>


I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the 
Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in 
this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to 
IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I 
also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic 
media issues look at the problem, since I think the views in the present 
discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a 
(unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.

 From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I 
have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made 
out by much of the discussion on this list. On the other hand, everyone 
does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving. 
However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what 
we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy 
positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical 
convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely, 
and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.

And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political position.

It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters 
vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet 
which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental 
NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking about 
transparency and non-exclusive-business-deals may only serve as 
convenient diversions, however important these issues intrinsically may be.

Parminder

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded and 
divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
Date: 	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:30:40 -0800
From: 	Steve Anderson <steve at democraticmedia.ca>
To: 	Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
CC: 	governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, 
"Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>, "Brian Beaton" 
<brianbeaton at knet.ca>, isolatedn at gmail.com
References: 	



Parminder, you raise important points here and I think we are on the
same page. I'm for option 2, and I've put this forth in submissions
and discussions with the CRTC.

Funny thing is that Google Canada just asked my position on
prioritization and I basically put what you wrote for option number 2.
I think they agree, but we'll see what they respond with. They
stretched the issue with moving their servers, but I think they are
still against prioritization. In my view it's at least half the issue
of NN.

I think the SON site and reports have been clear on this matter, but
I'll look for opportunities to be more clear. CDM's submission net
neutrality made explicit mention of prioritization.

I wrote a bit about the problem of creating an internet fast lane in
my most recent Media Links column:
http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=10713

cheers,
Steve

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Steve
>
> Thanks for supporting the 'publicness of the Internet' advocacy plank. One
> of the fliers of your save-our-internet campaign captures it just right -
> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
>
> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest
> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public
> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our
> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that
> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some
> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it
> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
> under.
>
> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we
> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
> can move forward in this area.. Lawrence Lessig, who is credited with
> co-inventing the term NN, sees NN as something that many others do not see
> NN as. I surfed the net on this issue a bit in the last few days and I am
> quite sure that an overwhelming number of people who support NN, and are
> rather passionate about it, are supporting something which is very different
> from what some leaders of NN movement (like Lessig) seem to be (now?)
> fighting for. In the circumstances, people need to know what they are
> supporting before they support it. This will foreclose what increasingly
> looks to me to be an impending eventuality - some leaders of the campaign
> coming back and reporting - we have won NN (for you!), and a celebration
> goes around, when what they would have gotten would still be enough to kill
> the Internet.
>
> Which is why, since you lead an important NN campaign in Canada -
> save-our-internet - (and from what I have read about this campaign it
> appears to me that it, unlike the US's save-the-internet campaign, is much
> clearer about what it wants) I wonder if you can help clarify which one of
> the following two situations meet your criterion of NN, and whether the two
> are not considerably different positions for people who are NN followers and
> foot-soldiers to be clear about what is what.
>
> Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and discriminatory
> interferences with traffic based on their business interests and
> arrangements with different providers of content and applications. However,
> this does not mean that they may not charge content providers differently
> for quality and speed for transmitting their content, as long as this
> special treatment is available to all for the same price and conditions.
>
> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per
> different charges.
>
> It is my view that the situation described in the option 1 above while very
> important, is relatively easy to ensure. (I do agree that we still need to
> fight for getting even this level of fairness.) However, casting NN advocacy
> and struggle narrowly in these terms, in my view, may turn out to be even
> more dangerous that having no advocacy around NN, because it deludes most
> people who seem to think that they are fighting for a really equal,
> non-tiered, Internet when they join the NN  brigade.  In the end - as has
> been the experience of many an advocacy campaigns - it is likely that this
> confusion on what exactly is NN, and what different groups may be seeking
> and may be against, is most likely to damage the interests of those who have
> certain ideas about what Internet was meant to be, what it should be and
> what it can be, in terms of its potential for equity and social justice, or
> even as a democratic media and a 'public sphere' etc.
>
> While I agree on being strategic in joining forces on this key issue, I
> think greater clarity on the NN concept, and more discussion among civil
> society actors on what are we fighting for, and to what avail, including if
> needed building scenarios, is very important at this stage.
>
> Thanks, and best regards. Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi all, I agree with overall vision concerning the publicness of the
> Internet, and less so with the laissez faire stuff.
>
> But this underlines a key element of Net Neutrality. There is a very
> broad and diverse constituency supporting Net Neutrality. This is
> important because the other side, while small in number, is very well
> financed and organized. Hence we can't afford lose anyone willing to
> work toward net neutrality. So I think keeping the principles simple
> and focused on net neutrality is key to this battle. I want the
> laissez faire people and public ownership people to work together on
> this - it's essential.
>
> I also support working on broader issues and forming coalitions for
> these. Some in Canada might be interested in the Campaign for
> Democratic Media Network:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/organizations-campaign-for-democratic-media-network
>
> Principles:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/our-principles
>
> -let me know if you're org wants to join the network.
>
> But for Net Neutrality I think the principles of the SaveOurNet.ca
> coalition are specific yet open enough to appeal most everyone who
> supports Net Neutrality. Namely it mentions both access issues and
> neutrality. Those who want to focus on the free market stuff can do
> work under these principles, as can those who support the public
> interest side of thing. For example, I'm working with several public
> internet groups in the coalition to make a coordinated public interest
> effort with the upcomming traffic management hearing. And I know
> Google and others are doing the same on the business side. This
> approach allows different groups and sub-sets to articulate their
> vision for the Internet, while also providing common ground for a
> broad coalition to operate. I think this is essential if we are to win
> this and broader digital divide issues.
>
> SON Description:
> SaveOurNet.ca is a coalition of citizens, businesses, and public
> interest groups fighting to protect our Internet's level playing
> field. We're calling on lawmakers and industry to protect openness,
> choice, and access for ALL Canadians — and stopping lobbyists and
> special interests from ruining Canada's Internet.
>
> Principles:
> http://saveournet.ca/content/saveournetca-principles
>
> If you support these I hope all of you will consider signing on as
> individuals and organizations here:
> http://saveournet.ca/members
>
> Bryan, is K-Net going to sign on?
>
> cheers,
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
>
>
> characteristics  (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should
>
>
> be that
>
>
>
>
> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>
>
>
>
> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
> are private........ >So >the  critical feature of the internet is in many
> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>
>
> Milton
>
> First of all, it is clear from my usage above, and the background of this
> issue in the 'publicness of the Internet' concept, that I speak of Internet
> being public not in strict legal ownership terms, but in socio-political
> terms. So you think the essential characteristic of the Internet is that it
> is private ?? I do suspect so from your views on network neutrality, but I
> will come to that in a seperate email.
>
> Your counter-arguments to my propositions are a bit slippery, and shifting.
> When confronting the 'ownership' issue (not legalistic-ally, but as everyone
> having in principle full and equal right to) you speak of the Internet as
> the physical networks. And when I speak of the 'purpose' of the Internet,
> you switch to speaking of the Internet as its essential protocols. Thats a
> bit, shall I say, disingenuous :-). Because if we speak of Internet as its
> essential protocols it is easy to agree about the publicness of the
> Internet. On the other hand, if we speak of it as physical networks built
> with private investments it is easier to speak of its purpose - which is
> private gain, with no guarantee of public interest and gains.
>
> This brings us to the essential issue which my email dealt with - trying to
> figure out the essential nature of the Internet, as we would like to have,
> and from their possibly derive the basic public policy principles for it.
> Would you not agree that this will be the logical way to go about it. I know
> you too are quite interested in developing the basic public policy
> principles for the Internet. Would you then state what you think are the
> essential characteristics of the Internet, and then we can debate it.
>
>
>
> The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only because
> they allow any and all private networks and privately owned equipment to be
>
>
> interconnected.
>
>
> Any public system - roads, infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are
> useful only because they facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows
> that. This does not obliterate the difference between the public and the
> private, does it!
>
>
>
> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
> regulate....
>
>
> and the understanding and the capacity of the corporates to appropriate.
>
>
>
> one could say that its effect was more libertarian than egalitarian. But
> its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field and afford those
> interested in >communicating more equal rights than they have ever had
> before.
>
>
> This is interesting. You say that the socio-political impact of the Internet
> was incidental. Fine, I may accept that, but you also seem to be
> non-committal about how it should be, hereon. Don't you want the Internet to
> have any (socio-political) directions and purpose. If you do want to it to
> have any, would you please state it. The whole debate is about that. That is
> what we all are where about.
>
>
>
> more libertarian than egalitarian.
>
>
> Now, this is fair turf. This is really what we are discussing, the above was
> mostly avoidable red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used by so
> many different types, that it often confuses me. I understand you are
> professing views more of what may be called as right-libertarian kind.
> Please correct me if I am wrong, in India we are still not very used to
> these terms). Since we want to keep our discussion practical, and
> purposeful, I think a very good instantiation of the above political
> difference is in our views on network neutrality. Will discuss in another
> email.
>
> parminder
>
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
> Happy holidays, all. Sorry for the slow response.
>
>
>
> It seems that we have had this conversation before, and you always have to
> agree that I am right but it never seems to make an impression on your
> political rhetoric. So I will try again (because
> I am just as persistent as you, and will not allow policies or principles
> that are incorrect to be established simply because someone keeps repeating
> them.
>
>
>
> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
> characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should be
> that
>
>
>
> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>
>
>
> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
> are private. The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful
> only because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned
> equipment to be interconnected. It is, in other words, the correct mixture
> of private and public elements, in their respective roles (to quote the TA)
> that makes it a success. The open protocols allow private initiative to
> flourish, and enable people to offer content and services without asking the
> public for permission. So the critical feature of the internet is in many
> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>
>
>
> I know that this does not conform to your ideology, but it's a fact.
>
>
>
> 2.   and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation – it is egalitarian
> (definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage Dictionary –
> "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political,
> economic, social, and civil rights for all people")
>
>
>
> Again I think you've got it wrong.
>
> Strictly speaking, the internet protocols do not have a "purpose" other than
> to establish compatible data communications among any and all networks.
> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
> regulate, one could say that its effect was more libertarian than
> egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field
> and afford those interested in communicating more equal rights than they
> have ever had before.
>
>
>
> Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most essential to
> what we call as the Internet – their contextual elaborations can always be
> done, in different circumstances and as related to different issues and
> aspects. No doubts, such elaboration will itself be a political process,
> subject to political trade-offs. The question is, are we as a world
> community – and to start with as a group of progressive civil society – able
> to agree to these (or any other) social and political principles to be the
> highest constitutive principles for the Internet.
>
>
>
> I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, exacting
> respect for the technical and historical facts.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Find me on Facebook:
http://FacebookSteve.com

Find me on Twitter:
http://SteveOnTwitter.com

See my Democratic Media Blog:
http://medialinkscolumn.com

Canadian Media News:
http://democraticmedia.ca/news



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090113/424802ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Tue Jan 13 07:44:53 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (nyangkweagien at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:44:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [governance] A washingtonpost.com article from:
 nyangkweagien@gmail.com
Message-ID: <11453502.1231850694045.JavaMail.wlogic@webapp2.wpprivate.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090113/b3bd8842/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Jan 13 09:09:39 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:09:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>


On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:

> >
> > Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content  
> providers for
> > any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
> > Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content  
> as per
> > different charges.
> >
> >
I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is  
as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small  
point based on my possibl flawed understanding

If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to  
content providers.

Not included is doing this to other service providers and no  
prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream  
downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it  
maps perfectly).  I.e. Access providers can provide different service  
levels for those who are happy with best effort for their email and  
occasional surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra  
low latency for playing massive online distributed games.

Is that correct?

I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the  
premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not  
sure how that fits into the puzzle.

Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides  
a small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a  
trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos  
are using  large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they  
be given the same access and be charged the same?

It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating  
because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a  
content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of  
bandwidth used (something else).

And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an  
activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable  
price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.


a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Jan 13 12:08:10 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:08:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] FCC Chair & NN
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
 <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84266BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011203610.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Gesendet: Di 13.01.2009 15:09
An: Governance List
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality




On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:

> >
> > Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content 
> providers for
> > any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
> > Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content 
> as per
> > different charges.
> >
> >
I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is 
as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small 
point based on my possibl flawed understanding

If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to 
content providers.

Not included is doing this to other service providers and no 
prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream 
downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it 
maps perfectly).  I.e. Access providers can provide different service 
levels for those who are happy with best effort for their email and 
occasional surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra 
low latency for playing massive online distributed games.

Is that correct?

I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the 
premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not 
sure how that fits into the puzzle.

Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides 
a small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a 
trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos 
are using  large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they 
be given the same access and be charged the same?

It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating 
because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a 
content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of 
bandwidth used (something else).

And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an 
activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable 
price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.


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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu  Tue Jan 13 14:47:29 2009
From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:47:29 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project
 Headlines
In-Reply-To: <MAIL04PMz6iPdVETpux0002e606@mail04.feedblitz.com>
References: <MAIL04PMz6iPdVETpux0002e606@mail04.feedblitz.com>
Message-ID: <28cfc1a40901131147o45a75ad7v35ac8c4e22743558@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, apologies in advance for crossposting.

Best,

Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internet Governance Project <info at internetgovernance.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Subject: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
To: bkuerbis <bkuerbis at twcny.rr.com>




January 12, 2009

Top Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009
IGF Workshop Report: "The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?"
Europe pioneers IPv4 address transfer markets
One Good Outcome from the Wall Street Journal - Google Flap
Search IGP Blog
________________________________

Top Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009

Here it is: IGP's contribution to the beginning of the year
forecasting. Note well: these are not predictions of outcomes but
designations of critical areas of change and decision in Internet
governance, where the outcome is still unknown. We are sure we've
overlooked some critical arenas -- use our comments to tell us what
they are!

1. ICANN and its relationship to the USG
A shift from Republican Party conservative nationalism to Democratic
Party liberal internationalism, along with the expiration of the Joint
Project Agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Commerce Department on
September 30, makes 2009 a watershed year for ICANN's tether to the
U.S. government. Moves toward internationalization by the Obama
administration could break policy logjams that date back to 2003 (if
not earlier); on the other hand, reassertion of the status quo would
put an end to the original Clinton Administration plans for a
"transition" once and for all. As Harold Feld put it in a notable blog
post, the USG has to "quit playing games" and fish or cut bait on the
"transition" to nongovernmental adminstration of DNS. A lot of subtle
repercussions will be felt either way; for example, international
acceptance of a method for signing the root so that secure DNS can be
widely implemented could depend on how the ICANN-USG relationship is
reformed. It is also likely that there will be agency turf battles
over ICANN policy within the US government.

2. Deep Packet Inspection in the service of Internet control
Concerns about copyright protection, terrorism, illegal content,
efficient bandwidth management, intrusion detection, botnets and
viruses are all converging to tempt various parties to experiment with
Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). DPI is the technology that automatically
opens all your packets in real time and looks inside them before it
decides whether to forward them or not. Will 2009 be the year that DPI
starts to settle into place as an integrated infrastructure of
Internet control – the ultimate man-in-the-middle solution to Internet
governance problems? Or, conversely, will it be the year that we learn
it doesn't really work as well as we think it does; that it can't
handle the capacity of higher speed networks; that principled ISPs and
digital rights groups take DPI off the agenda by highlighting its
hostile relationship to privacy and network neutrality? The Comcast
incident and the Belgian court case were only the opening shots in
this battle. DPI vendors take note: this is the year we will find out
which of these scenarios is true (or, if we land somewhere in the
middle, we should get a good glimpse of which end of the spectrum we
end up on).

3. The new Internet Protocol: Can the Net reproduce itself?
Forget all that talk about a "clean slate Internet;" we're having
enough trouble implementing a new IP standard that developed a decade
ago. 2009 will mark a turning point in the most important technical
standards migration on the Internet since its opening to the public in
1991 – the transition from IP version 4 to IP version 6. IPv4 is the
original Internet protocol but it is running out of address space. IP
version 6 is a new standard with a much bigger address space, but it's
incompatible with the older standard and has no major advantages over
IPv4 other than its more capacious address space. For many years
incompatibility, the lack of a reliable gateway protocol making v4 and
v6 compatible, and the additional expense, risk and trouble of
shifting to a new standard have created a "you first" game in which
ISPs wait for someone else to take the lead. If that pattern breaks
this year we could see a stampede toward IPv6. But if the holding
pattern doesn't break, then the regional address registries will be
forced to make major changes in their policies to head off IPv4
address shortages in 2010 and 2011: legalized address transfer
markets, tougher reclamation policies, pressure on pre-RIR legacy
holders, higher fees, reservation policies, and so on.

4. ICANN's abysmal new gTLD process
On December 18, the U.S. government gave ICANN a Christmas present: a
letter containing a thorough trashing of its plan to open the DNS root
to lots of new top level domains. The U.S. letter joined a chorus of
big business and trademark interests who have always been against any
new TLDs, but it also made some valid criticisms about the proposal's
incredible attempt to set up ICANN as global arbiter of "morality and
public order," suggesting that that function might be better left to
local laws. Will the U.S. move succeed in intimidating the ICANN
Board? It already seems to have produced a 4 month delay. Bad as the
policy is, derailing it opens up a huge can of worms. While no one
will rush to passionately defend a policy that institutes global
censorship of TLD strings, imposes outrageously high entry costs, and
gives any organized group in the world a hecklers veto, the fact
remains that this Rube Goldberg contraption emerged (more or less
legitimately) from ICANN's policy process. The policy took full
account of the "Principles regarding new TLDs" given to ICANN by its
Governmental Advisory Committee (which includes the US) and bent over
backwards to accommodate the concerns of the trademark owners who are
now complaining about it. And what about the long-delayed
internationalized domain names? If ICANN can't close the deal on this
one, people would have to start asking whether ICANN can succeed in
making public policy about anything related to DNS or internet
identifiers; one would have to conclude that there is something
fundamentally unworkable about ICANN.

5. IGF renewal
By the end of this year it should be clear whether the Internet
Governance Forum was a short, not too unpleasant footnote in the
history of Internet governance or a relatively permanent feature of it
going forward. The World Summit on the Information Society's Tunis
Agenda gave the IGF a five-year initial life span; by the end of 2010,
the UN Secretary-General must "examine the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum
participants," and "make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
regard." This means that consultations on the future of IGF will take
place in the second half of 2009, and that the issue of continuation
will probably form a major part of the discussions at the Cairo IGF in
November 2009. By the end of this year if should be clear whether
anyone out to kill the IGF or not. We suspect that the IGF will be
renewed; the more important issue, of course, is whether the IGF
evolves into a more influential and meaningful forum. We have
published some analysis of that question.

6. VoIP and the mobile Internet
2009 will be the year that the inherent tension between the broadband
mobile internet and traditional mobile voice revenues becomes fully
evident and starts to have major effects. The maturation of open
source mobile platforms, such as G1 Android or OpenMoko, coupled with
the spread of WiFi compatible phones, high-speed mobile networks, the
explosion of the netbooks market this year and the greater adoption of
data communication capabilities by consumers in developed countries,
all will force mobile carriers to make a fateful choice. Either adopt
net neutrality principles and allow widespread adoption of VOIP
clients (e.g., Fring), or depart from NN principles and try to
preserve the remnants of their higher-margin circuit-switched voice
traffic. That policy issue will play out more in national arenas than
in global ones, which means that the results will be diverse, but an
increasingly globalized advocacy of NN as a principle could play an
important role in the mix.

7. Can the ITU World Telecom Policy Forum revive WSIS?
The ITU is as determined as ever to retain its relevance in an
Internet-dominated world. Its World Telecom Policy Forum, to be held
in Lisbon, Portugal April 22-24, 2009, plans to deal extensively with
Internet governance issues. If the ITU is smart, it will try to open
these proceedings to civil society and lure other new actors into its
venues, actors who may be less than thrilled with the progress of the
Internet Governance Forum and less than supportive of ICANN. The WTPF
could become a place for governments and other actors unsure about or
dissatisfied with the IGF/ICANN-centered regime to air their
grievances and attempt to develop an alternative center of policy
discourse, if not policy power. Can the ITU really become
multistakeholder? Granted, that will take more than one year…

8. Will Governments make ISP intermediaries for security?
Over the past years, there have been increasing calls for governments
to put more pressure on ISPs to improve their security practices.
After years of focusing on end users with awareness raising campaigns
and education, it has become clear that such efforts cannot keep up
with the changes in internet abuse and cybercrime. Now the focus is
shifiting to intermediaries. ISPs are at the top of the list. The
Dutch regulator OPTA threatened to introduce regulation, then
backtracked and talked about a quality mark or certification scheme.
The British House of Lords made similar recommendations. In Australia,
ACMA already has enforceable codes of conducts for ISPs. It also
notifies ISPs directly about abuse and requires them to act on these
notifications. These examples are just the first steps of governments
exploring what role they can have or want to have when it comes to
internet security.

• Email to a friend • Article Search • •

IGF Workshop Report: "The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?"

ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government through
a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The
JPA and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known
as "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
committed to "completing the transition" to private sector
coordination of the DNS, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
During the 2008 mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by
some stakeholders. Other parties, however, expressed concerns about
its accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.

This workshop, held on Wednesday December 4, 2008 at the Internet
Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, was designed to provide a
careful and balanced exploration of whether ICANN is ready to be free
of US government oversight, and if so what kind of external oversight
- if any - should replace it.

• Email to a friend • Article Search • •

Europe pioneers IPv4 address transfer markets

The European regional Internet address registry, RIPE-NCC, has finally
passed an IPv4 address transfer policy. This means that a legal market
for trading in rapidly-depleting IPv4 address resources will go into
effect for any member of RIPE-NCC. To discourage speculation, the
proposal retains a simple form of needs assessment and prevents buyers
of address resources from reselling them for two years. RIPE's
decisive action contrasts markedly with the contentious drama
surrounding IPv4 transfer markets in the North American region. After
months and months of debate ARIN is still paralyzed and riven by
ideological disagreements. However, the implementation of the idea in
the European region will provide a chance to prove the concept. It is
also possible that the RIPE market will turn into a global one, as
addresses can be transferred by any RIPE member, and it is (we think)
possible for Internet service providers from outside the region to
join RIPE. For a description of the new policy see section 5.5 of RIPE
NCC's IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies.

• Email to a friend • Article Search • •

One Good Outcome from the Wall Street Journal - Google Flap

The Wall Street Journal published an article alleging that Google was
trying to arrange a "fast lane for its own content" with telecom
carriers and contending that Google and Professor Lessig were in the
midst of changing their position on network neutrality policy. The WSJ
reporters received a lot of flak for the piece - justifiably so. The
WSJ's sudden interest in the topic seemed more like an attempt to
poison the well as the Obama Administration and its net
neutrality-friendly team ascends to power. There is one useful outcome
of this incident, however.

• Email to a friend • Article Search • •

________________________________
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "IGP Blog" or change
subscription settings
________________________________
________________________________
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau
Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jan 14 00:55:52 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:25:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
Message-ID: <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net>

 >>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
 > any special treatment of their content

 >I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.

Avri,

Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I 
may mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content 
provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not 
be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the 
basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a 
public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for 
private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, 
and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject 
to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP 
based services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global 
public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, 
and cherish.

Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To 
foster "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media 
can hardly be fostered on an Internet with 
pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models. It requires a fully open 
and public Internet as described above, with an equal treatment of all 
content and traffic on it.


Parminder


PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it may 
be useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his 
paper on 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using 
even the relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is 
deliberately more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.


Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content 
>> providers for
>> > any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
>> > Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content 
>> as per
>> > different charges.
>> >
>> >
> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is 
> as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small 
> point based on my possibl flawed understanding
>
> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to 
> content providers.
>
> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no 
> prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream 
> downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it 
> maps perfectly).  I.e. Access providers can provide different service 
> levels for those who are happy with best effort for their email and 
> occasional surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra 
> low latency for playing massive online distributed games.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the 
> premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not 
> sure how that fits into the puzzle.
>
> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides 
> a small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a 
> trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos 
> are using  large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they 
> be given the same access and be charged the same?
>
> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating 
> because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a 
> content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of 
> bandwidth used (something else).
>
> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an 
> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable 
> price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
>
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090114/0a1d6038/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 07:32:06 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:32:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] NYT: Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown
Message-ID: <800297F9DC174F228C5428A6AB98B2CD@userPC>


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/technology/internet/14cyberweb.html?_r=3

Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown 

By BRAD STONE
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/brad_stone/ind
ex.html?inline=nyt-per> 
Published: January 13, 2009 

The Internet may not be such a dangerous place for children after all.

A task force created by 49 state attorneys general to look into the problem
of sexual solicitation of children online has concluded that there really is
not a significant problem. 

The findings ran counter to popular perceptions of online dangers as
reinforced by depictions in the news media like NBC
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/nbc_universal/index.h
tml?inline=nyt-org> 's "To Catch a Predator" series. One attorney general
was quick to criticize the group's report.

The panel, the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, was charged with
examining the extent of the threats children face on social networks like
MySpace
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/myspace_com/index.htm
l?inline=nyt-org>  and Facebook
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.ht
ml?inline=nyt-org> , amid widespread fears that adults were using these
popular Web sites to deceive and prey on children. 

But the report concluded that the problem of bullying among children, both
online and offline, poses a far more serious challenge than the sexual
solicitation of minors by adults. 

"This shows that social networks are not these horribly bad neighborhoods on
the Internet," said John Cardillo, chief executive of Sentinel Tech Holding,
which maintains a sex offender database and was part of the task force.
"Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are
comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons."

The 278-page report, released Tuesday, was the result of a year of meetings
between dozens of academics, experts in childhood safety and executives of
30 companies, including Yahoo
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/yahoo_inc/index.html?
inline=nyt-org> , AOL
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/aol/index.html?inline
=nyt-org> , MySpace and Facebook.

The task force, led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at
Harvard University
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard
_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> , looked at scientific data on online
sexual predators and found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be
propositioned by adults online. In the cases that do exist, the report said,
teenagers are typically willing participants and are already at risk because
of poor home environments, substance abuse or other problems. 

Not everyone was happy with the conclusions. Richard Blumenthal
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/richard_blumen
thal/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , the Connecticut attorney general, who has
forcefully pursued the issue and helped to create the task force, said he
disagreed with the report. Mr. Blumenthal said it "downplayed the predator
threat," relied on outdated research and failed to provide a specific plan
for improving the safety of social networking. 

"Children are solicited every day online," Mr. Blumenthal said. "Some fall
prey, and the results are tragic. That harsh reality defies the statistical
academic research underlying the report."

In what social networks may view as something of an exoneration after years
of pressure from law enforcement, the report said sites like MySpace and
Facebook "do not appear to have increased the overall risk of solicitation."

Attorneys general like Mr. Blumenthal and Roy Cooper of North Carolina
publicly accused the social networks of facilitating the activities of
pedophiles and pushed them to adopt measures to protect their youngest
users. Citing studies that showed tens of thousands of convicted sex
offenders were using MySpace, they pressured the networks to purge those
people from their membership databases. 

The attorneys general also charged the task force with evaluating
technologies that might play a role in enhancing safety for children online.
An advisory board composed of academic computer scientists and forensics
experts was created within the task force to look at technologies and ask
companies in the industry to submit their child-protection systems.

Among the systems the technology board looked at included age verification
technologies that try to authenticate the identities and ages of children
and prevent adults from contacting them. But the board concluded that such
systems "do not appear to offer substantial help in protecting minors from
sexual solicitation."

One problem is that it is difficult to verify the ages and identities of
children because they do not have driver's licenses or insurance. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090114/53c22a20/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 08:08:12 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:08:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/13/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the
> Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in
> this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to
> IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I
> also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic
> media issues look at the problem

We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".

, since I think the views in the present
> discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a
> (unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.
>

You may say it, but you would be incorrect.  What Milton, Ralf and I
have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
ways that you seem to think it is.

Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going forward:

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
control of what content they view and what applications they use on
the Internet."

This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
not), as Google does here:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html


>  From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I
> have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made
> out by much of the discussion on this list.

Not obscure, just too specific.

On the other hand, everyone
> does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving.
> However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what
> we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy
> positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical
> convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely,
> and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.
>
> And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political position.
>
> It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters
> vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet
> which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental
> NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking

What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?


-- 
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 ginger at paque.net  Wed Jan 14 08:23:28 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:53:28 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C1225B4755E4670BB1B56CD12E6D1C5@GINGERLAPTOP>

From McTim:
Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
forward:

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
control of what content they view and what applications they use on
the Internet."

Ginger says: I strongly second this suggestion--it addresses simply and
clearly the point that is important to users.

Also from McTim:
What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?

Ginger says: Exactly. The IGF is the Internet Governance FORUM. It is a
place to discuss and debate: to talk. But it can inform, teach, support and
foster principles it chooses, and we can affect those choices by our
statement to the MAG. 

Two points we can emphasize are NN, and Remote Participation, two areas that
are important right now, and affect the concrete function of users. I
suggest we work toward formulating a short concise statement to the MAG on
these two points. 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 14 de Enero de 2009 08:38 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

On 1/13/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the
> Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in
> this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to
> IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I
> also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic
> media issues look at the problem

We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".

, since I think the views in the present
> discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a
> (unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.
>

You may say it, but you would be incorrect.  What Milton, Ralf and I
have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
ways that you seem to think it is.

Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
forward:

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
control of what content they view and what applications they use on
the Internet."

This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
not), as Google does here:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutra
lity.html


>  From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I
> have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made
> out by much of the discussion on this list.

Not obscure, just too specific.

On the other hand, everyone
> does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving.
> However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what
> we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy
> positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical
> convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely,
> and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.
>
> And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political
position.
>
> It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters
> vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet
> which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental
> NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking

What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?


-- 
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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 14 10:12:38 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:12:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>


Le 14 janv. 09 à 14:08, McTim a écrit :

> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work  
> going forward:
>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
> the Internet."

I'm wondering why would we even bother stating such an obvious  
"definition", since it doesn't define anything. If a statement  
doesn't allow us to go a step forward collectively, at least to reach  
a common understanding of an issue and if only to be able to confront  
different opinions in a consistent way, then what would have we  
achieved? Is our objective to agree by any mean, including by  
smoothing or polishing any issue until it becomes a non issue, or to  
clarify our understanding of an issue, and if diverging opinions  
appear, then so be it and after all, that's healthy?

> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by- 
> net-neutrality.html

One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as  
defined by Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and  
with the completeness of the identified options. However, the  
identified behaviors are good starting points for discussion, and I  
don't see why this would constitute a "can of worms".

Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole  
definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the  
sentence you excerpted:

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in  
control of what content they view and what applications they use on  
the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality  
principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that  
has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and  
innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the  
Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted  
to use their market power to discriminate against competing  
applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not  
permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say,  
broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to  
control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at  
stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to  
determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply,  
this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."

Note that, consistent with its definition above, Google identifies as  
"okay behavior" two of those we already agreed on:
- Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or  
private network backbone links;
- Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance  
capacity broadband service.

So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?  
Which can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/ 
not okay behavior?

Best,
Meryem____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Jan 14 10:27:57 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:27:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] FYI
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84266D0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303106_pf.html

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jan 14 10:32:21 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:02:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496E0585.90303@itforchange.net>

>Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going forward:

>"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>control of what content they view and what applications they use on
>the Internet."

>This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:

  http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html

McTim

The same Google policy blog, in defining NN, also says under,

"What isnt Ok" - "Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns 
Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, 
bandwidth-starved portion of the broadband connection."

That is the only point I have been trying to argue over all these days, 
and have in all obscuring ways been accused of obscurity.  Now since you 
are unlikely to say that even Google is confused, and you have professed 
eagerness to adopt Google's definition of NN, can you *specifically 
answer* if you think that the above, as Google says, is *not* Ok, and a 
violation of NN.

That is all we need, in order to move forward on this. We can just pull 
this line into our assertion of what we think is NN as an objective of 
our advocacy efforts.

Parminder



McTim wrote:
> On 1/13/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>> I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the
>> Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in
>> this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to
>> IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I
>> also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic
>> media issues look at the problem
>>     
>
> We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".
>
> , since I think the views in the present
>   
>> discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a
>> (unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.
>>
>>     
>
> You may say it, but you would be incorrect.  What Milton, Ralf and I
> have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
> ways that you seem to think it is.
>
> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going forward:
>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
> the Internet."
>
> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html
>
>
>   
>>  From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I
>> have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made
>> out by much of the discussion on this list.
>>     
>
> Not obscure, just too specific.
>
> On the other hand, everyone
>   
>> does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving.
>> However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what
>> we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy
>> positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical
>> convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely,
>> and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.
>>
>> And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political position.
>>
>> It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters
>> vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet
>> which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental
>> NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking
>>     
>
> What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090114/c82f7a0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Jan 14 10:35:18 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:35:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com> <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Meryem Marzouki schrieb:

>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html
>>
(...)
> In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to
> use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or
> content. 
I think this is the key point: "competing". This would protect users from
vertical integration issues and market-power in cases where a broadband
carrier is also offering e.g. his own content or voip services.

Good. Agree.

But:
> Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers
> who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be
> allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the
> neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want
> Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and
> fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the
> Internet."

This is at least misleading, because the telephone analogy does not hold
here. Once a phone circuit is established, it is reserved for your call,
while on the internet, you have congestion issues. So if my broadband
carrier does QoS and sends my VoIP or streaming video over a faster pipe
than my bittorrent or ftp traffic, I don't see it as a problem, and
actually, a lot of networks do it.

The key here is that such QoS (which always is /discrimination/ of some
packets for the sake of speeding up others) should /at most/ be done on
the basis of the /protocol/, but not in any case on the basis of the
traffic source[1] or the actual content.

Best, Ralf

[1] Even here, it's a bit more tricky: If my ISP has different peering or
interconnection agreements with different sources, the traffic coming from
 different autonomous systems may be discriminated as a result. I guess
the point is that they should not use their market power to enter into
/arbitrary/ interconnection agreements because some other network provider
also offers competing content etc. Again, the whole point is "competing",
which leads to NN as non-exclusionary business deals.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 14 11:44:15 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:44:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com> <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org> <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>


Le 14 janv. 09 à 16:35, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :

>>>
>>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by- 
>>> net-neutrality.html

>>> Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers
>> who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should  
>> not be
>> allowed to use their market power to control activity online.  
>> Today, the
>> neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want
>> Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and
>> fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness  
>> of the
>> Internet."
>
> This is at least misleading, because the telephone analogy does not  
> hold
> here. Once a phone circuit is established, it is reserved for your  
> call,
> while on the internet, you have congestion issues.

Any analogy is misleading, actually, but still helpful to figure out.  
Obviously the telephone companies has been used here as an analogy  
with the must carry obligation, rather than with the circuit  
switching protocol. i.e. when I call you using my telephone company,  
I don't expect them to manage in one way or another that the  
communication couldn't be established, or is bad to the extent that I  
give up calling you. Especially if my phone company reasons are that  
it entered in a dispute with your own phone company, or it knows that  
we'll be speaking English, and it has decided to prioritize say,  
spanish language over its voice infrastructure, or whatever.
Want another analogy? Printed newspaper distribution. Big mainstream  
media having vertically integrated their business activities, thus  
owning the monopoly distributing business, and distributing their own  
daily newspaper early morning while distributing alternative  
independent daily newspaper with a one day delay. Isn't there also a  
congestion issue here (number of employee for the distribution,  
number of vehicles transporting newpapers, etc.)?

> So if my broadband
> carrier does QoS and sends my VoIP or streaming video over a faster  
> pipe
> than my bittorrent or ftp traffic, I don't see it as a problem, and
> actually, a lot of networks do it.

QoS is not a matter of speed and bandwidth only, and is not  
determined by the application. And QoS has always been there, far  
previous any net neutrality discussion. Same applies to ISO layers..

> The key here is that such QoS (which always is /discrimination/ of  
> some
> packets for the sake of speeding up others) should /at most/ be  
> done on
> the basis of the /protocol/, but not in any case on the basis of the
> traffic source[1] or the actual content.
>
> Best, Ralf
>
> [1] Even here, it's a bit more tricky: If my ISP has different  
> peering or
> interconnection agreements with different sources, the traffic  
> coming from
>  different autonomous systems may be discriminated as a result.

It is the case, actually, and you can easily check this using tools  
like visualroute (http://visualroute.visualware.com/). Try it with  
ras.eu.org, zedat.fu-berlin.de, and itforchange.net, and you'll get  
an idea of how traffic originating from a same node (Visualware, in  
Ashburn, Virginia), is "discriminated" when trying to reach me, you  
or Parminde. And the winner is.. Parminder:)

But the point is, roughly speaking, that different contents/ 
applications entering the same pipe of a given AS shouldn't be  
discriminated by this AS because of its nature, and this should apply  
to any AS on the internet route.

> I guess
> the point is that they should not use their market power to enter into
> /arbitrary/ interconnection agreements because some other network  
> provider

Then we would have to define what is arbitrary and what is not, which  
doesn't advance the discussion.

> also offers competing content etc. Again, the whole point is  
> "competing",
> which leads to NN as non-exclusionary business deals.

What kind of competition? What is competition and what is not? VoIP  
vs. mobile operators? IPTV vs. cable TV operators? you vs. me (or me  
vs. you:))? Actually, anyone is competing with everyone needing to  
share the same bandwidth, or rather the same internet, and there's  
only one.. Back to it's publicness feature.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 11:53:12 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:53:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 14 janv. 09 à 14:08, McTim a écrit :
>
>> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
>> forward:
>>
>> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
>> the Internet."
>
> I'm wondering why would we even bother stating such an obvious "definition",

It seemed to be a starting point of defining an issue.. a point that
we can all agree on.

>
>> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
>> not), as Google does here:
>>
>>
>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html
>
> One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as defined by
> Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and with the
> completeness of the identified options. However, the identified behaviors
> are good starting points for discussion, and I don't see why this would
> constitute a "can of worms".

Well, once we start identifying behaviors, where do we stop? Do we
describe every single case of potential traffic discrimination?

Delimiting what's ok and what's not is something we will likely NOT
get consensus on.

>
> Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole
> definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the sentence you
> excerpted:

it does:

>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on the
> Internet.

but the below is background and their stance, which I purposefully
excluded (I didn't want to be put in the situation where would be
accused of proposing that we accept the policy stance of the webs
wealthiest corporation on this issue ;-)

The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle
> since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many
> companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally,
> net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.
 In our view, the
> broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to
> discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone
> companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they
> can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power
> to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at
> stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what
> content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally
> alter the openness of the Internet."
>
> Note that, consistent with its definition above, Google identifies as "okay
> behavior" two of those we already agreed on:
> - Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private
> network backbone links;
> - Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity
> broadband service.
>
> So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?

Well, In a global context, I'd have to disagree that "net neutrality
is about equal access to the Internet."  What they seem to mean is
that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
access.

Which
> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not okay
> behavior?

Well their list is mostly about "their" issue.  They don't address the
responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter.  With
rights come responsibilities, everyone in this debate has both, often
competing.

Ralf has already identified some potential in earlier mails, here are
some more (as many as I can type in 60 seconds):

port blocking
cutting off "bandwidth hogs"
not allowing servers to be run on individual connections (what kinds
of equipment that may be attached)
what is allowed re: network management/data discrimination
censorship (not only by ISps but by governments)
blocking Skype/Vonage, etc
pricing models in an era of growing bandwidth consumption

now my fingers are tired, and there are many dozens or hundreds more.
 Are we going to enumerate every activity that is possible by
users/CS/PS and governments and than try to reach a consensus about
whether or not each is a NN violation?  I would hope not.  Let's stick
to high level principles in our statement.

-- 
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 avri at acm.org  Wed Jan 14 12:15:48 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:15:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com> <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D1B0392-0924-4FA1-B75C-924E80B53E30@acm.org>


On 14 Jan 2009, at 11:53, McTim wrote:

> What they seem to mean is
> that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
> access.


i disagree.
and hope that i am right in thinking that by everyone, they mean  
everyone.

i have trouble believing they would say they did not care about those  
who did not already have access or would agree that those who get  
access in the future would get a lesser standard of access then  
everyone.

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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Jan 14 12:56:06 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:56:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net><f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com><31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DB3@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

I was going to object on McTim's grounds - ie we shouldn;t be taking word/phrase definitions from Google.

But then I remembered 'universal service' was invented by AT&T as a marketing slogan about 100 years ago.

So I guess it's Google's turn.

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 1/14/2009 11:53 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
 
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 14 janv. 09 à 14:08, McTim a écrit :
>
>> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
>> forward:
>>
>> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
>> the Internet."
>
> I'm wondering why would we even bother stating such an obvious "definition",

It seemed to be a starting point of defining an issue.. a point that
we can all agree on.

>
>> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
>> not), as Google does here:
>>
>>
>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html
>
> One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as defined by
> Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and with the
> completeness of the identified options. However, the identified behaviors
> are good starting points for discussion, and I don't see why this would
> constitute a "can of worms".

Well, once we start identifying behaviors, where do we stop? Do we
describe every single case of potential traffic discrimination?

Delimiting what's ok and what's not is something we will likely NOT
get consensus on.

>
> Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole
> definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the sentence you
> excerpted:

it does:

>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on the
> Internet.

but the below is background and their stance, which I purposefully
excluded (I didn't want to be put in the situation where would be
accused of proposing that we accept the policy stance of the webs
wealthiest corporation on this issue ;-)

The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle
> since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many
> companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally,
> net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.
 In our view, the
> broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to
> discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone
> companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they
> can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power
> to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at
> stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what
> content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally
> alter the openness of the Internet."
>
> Note that, consistent with its definition above, Google identifies as "okay
> behavior" two of those we already agreed on:
> - Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private
> network backbone links;
> - Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity
> broadband service.
>
> So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?

Well, In a global context, I'd have to disagree that "net neutrality
is about equal access to the Internet."  What they seem to mean is
that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
access.

Which
> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not okay
> behavior?

Well their list is mostly about "their" issue.  They don't address the
responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter.  With
rights come responsibilities, everyone in this debate has both, often
competing.

Ralf has already identified some potential in earlier mails, here are
some more (as many as I can type in 60 seconds):

port blocking
cutting off "bandwidth hogs"
not allowing servers to be run on individual connections (what kinds
of equipment that may be attached)
what is allowed re: network management/data discrimination
censorship (not only by ISps but by governments)
blocking Skype/Vonage, etc
pricing models in an era of growing bandwidth consumption

now my fingers are tired, and there are many dozens or hundreds more.
 Are we going to enumerate every activity that is possible by
users/CS/PS and governments and than try to reach a consensus about
whether or not each is a NN violation?  I would hope not.  Let's stick
to high level principles in our statement.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090114/b159f175/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 14 13:06:09 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:06:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com> <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0901140853l76297eedqed0e09f133420683@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C988F23-45CA-40F1-A063-67CD1530AE46@ras.eu.org>


Le 14 janv. 09 à 17:53, McTim a écrit :

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Meryem Marzouki  
> <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:

>>> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and  
>>> what is
>>> not), as Google does here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by- 
>>> net-neutrality.html
>>
>> One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as  
>> defined by
>> Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and with the
>> completeness of the identified options. However, the identified  
>> behaviors
>> are good starting points for discussion, and I don't see why this  
>> would
>> constitute a "can of worms".
>
> Well, once we start identifying behaviors, where do we stop? Do we
> describe every single case of potential traffic discrimination?

Not every single case at the deepest level of detail, but I find the  
broad situations used by Google to describe behaviors fair enough to  
allow discussion, opinions, and choices. They are (sorted by  
alphabetical order:) :

1- Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet content  
and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of  
the broadband connection
2- Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance  
capacity broadband service
3- Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or  
private network backbone links
4- Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail  
customers
5- Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic  
based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service  
(DOS) attacks, viruses or worms
6- Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as  
streaming video
7- Prioritizing data packet delivery based on the ownership or  
affiliation (the who) of the content, or the source or destination  
(the what) of the content
8- Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV)

We can add others if the want. It would be an interesting exercize to  
try to answer, for each of them, the two following questions:
- Does this fall into the network neutrality debate?
- If so, would this be compliant with a network neutrality objective  
or not?

>> Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole
>> definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the  
>> sentence you
>> excerpted:
>
> it does:
>
>>
>> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>> control of what content they view and what applications they use  
>> on the
>> Internet.
>
> but the below is background and their stance, which I purposefully
> excluded (I didn't want to be put in the situation where would be
> accused of proposing that we accept the policy stance of the webs
> wealthiest corporation on this issue ;-)

:) it's true that not only their stance but also their formulation is  
primarily for their own sake, but who would expect anything else? And  
they seem to be only concerned with broadband carriers:)

>> So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?
>
> Well, In a global context, I'd have to disagree that "net neutrality
> is about equal access to the Internet."

ah ah ah, I expected this one:) Believe it or not, I disagree too.  
Not because this is not desirable, but because this is not exact. Net  
neutrality is not about equal access, and equal access involve much  
more than this. Net neutrality is about non discriminated treatment  
when placed under the same conditions. Which conditions, that's the  
whole debate.

> What they seem to mean is
> that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
> access.

I suspect it's simply communication/public relations stuff. This  
Google page is intended to the large public, and "equal access" is  
good wish, likely to have people ready to write their Congress  
representatives that they are in favor of "net neutrality". "Ça ne  
mange pas de pain", as we say in French.

> Which
>> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not  
>> okay
>> behavior?
>
> Well their list is mostly about "their" issue.

Agree. Let's add ours, if any, and remove those which are Google  
specifics, if needed.

> They don't address the
> responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter.

I think that, when adressing the net neutrality issue, users have no  
responsibilities in this, because they have no direct action on it,  
except to, as individual or organized citizens, act towards  
governements in view of a regulation ensuring net neutrality. Which  
leads me to restrict governments' responsibilities to define and  
enforce such regulations.
NB. I've already mentioned in a previous mail that direct censorship  
issues are NOT part of the net neutrality debate, in my view, as they  
should be dealt with differently, especially from the legislation  
point of view.

> Ralf has already identified some potential in earlier mails, here are
> some more (as many as I can type in 60 seconds):

I think this level of details is not required at this step.

>  Are we going to enumerate every activity that is possible by
> users/CS/PS and governments and than try to reach a consensus about
> whether or not each is a NN violation?  I would hope not.  Let's stick
> to high level principles in our statement.

Agree, and I find Google situations 1 to 8 above defined as high  
level principles, while still allowing to make one's mind. Don't you?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 14 14:47:24 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:47:24 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <4C1225B4755E4670BB1B56CD12E6D1C5@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <6DC078473F5844F782DAFF9F96C8D47E@IAN>

The Google definition doesn’t work for me - in pay-tv models users are in
charge of what content they view, they just have to choose which packages of
content they pay for.

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
> Sent: 15 January 2009 00:23
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
> 
> From McTim:
> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
> forward:
> 
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
> the Internet."
> 
> Ginger says: I strongly second this suggestion--it addresses simply and
> clearly the point that is important to users.
> 
> Also from McTim:
> What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
> 
> Ginger says: Exactly. The IGF is the Internet Governance FORUM. It is a
> place to discuss and debate: to talk. But it can inform, teach, support
> and
> foster principles it chooses, and we can affect those choices by our
> statement to the MAG.
> 
> Two points we can emphasize are NN, and Remote Participation, two areas
> that
> are important right now, and affect the concrete function of users. I
> suggest we work toward formulating a short concise statement to the MAG on
> these two points.
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 14 de Enero de 2009 08:38 a.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
> 
> On 1/13/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the
> > Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in
> > this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to
> > IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I
> > also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic
> > media issues look at the problem
> 
> We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".
> 
> , since I think the views in the present
> > discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a
> > (unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.
> >
> 
> You may say it, but you would be incorrect.  What Milton, Ralf and I
> have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
> ways that you seem to think it is.
> 
> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
> forward:
> 
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
> the Internet."
> 
> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:
> 
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-
> neutra
> lity.html
> 
> 
> >  From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I
> > have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made
> > out by much of the discussion on this list.
> 
> Not obscure, just too specific.
> 
> On the other hand, everyone
> > does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving.
> > However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what
> > we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy
> > positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical
> > convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely,
> > and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.
> >
> > And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political
> position.
> >
> > It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters
> > vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet
> > which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental
> > NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking
> 
> What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 16:04:29 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:04:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496E0585.90303@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <496E0585.90303@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901141304r1fe628d1scc56bfe0e52b1f55@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going
>> forward:
>
>>"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>>control of what content they view and what applications they use on
>>the Internet."

To be clear, this definition came from a different page:

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

>
>>This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
>> not), as Google does here:
>
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html
>
> McTim
>
> The same Google policy blog, in defining NN, also says under,
>
> "What isnt Ok" - "Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet
> content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of
> the broadband connection."
>
> That is the only point I have been trying to argue over all these days, and
> have in all obscuring ways been accused of obscurity.  Now since you are
> unlikely to say that even Google is confused

not confused, just focused on one issue, just as torrent folks are
focused on their issue.  We shouldn't focus on single issues, we have
bigger fish to fry.

, and you have professed
> eagerness to adopt Google's definition of NN, can you *specifically answer*
> if you think that the above, as Google says, is *not* Ok, and a violation of
> NN.

I don't know what it means, as its a bit vague, so really can't answer
that for all cases.

Google seems to mean that termination monopoly pricing is not ok, I
agree with them.  Google pays once for their bandwidth, they shouldn't
have to pay again because the people who run the "dumb pipes" are
annoyed because they think Google gets a free ride.

However, prioritizing packets is ok, in some cases.  The devil is in
the details.
The Internets success is due to its decentralized and mostly neutral nature.
We shouldn't advocate that it is completely neutral as it has never
actually been neutral.  File transfers normally get priority, for
example.

Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, said it well: "I most
definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where
there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually
create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like
making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... (hacker) attacks."

>
> That is all we need, in order to move forward on this. We can just pull this
> line into our assertion of what we think is NN as an objective of our
> advocacy efforts.

This is just one aspect of what folk have been going on about re: NN.
We shouldn't just focus on this one narrow part of the issue, we
should be speaking out about censorship by governments, rights and
responsibilities of users, as well as about what we think providers
can and cannot do.

-- 
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 dcogburn at syr.edu  Wed Jan 14 17:42:50 2009
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:42:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
Message-ID: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations for
our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We have
designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:

     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
endorsement for their candidature.
     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
(required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
nomination is unsuccessful.
     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
MAG and IGF work.
     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
their positions within the MAG.

All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
Monday, 26 January 2009.

To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a

If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not  
hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

Kindest regards,

2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
Siranush Vardanyan
Stuart Hamilton
Rudi Vansnick
Renate Bloem
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 14 18:41:41 2009
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:41:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FF1D0004-AA9F-458D-BFFA-BDE14D84B3F6@syr.edu>

Sorry colleagues, I inadvertently left off the name of our final  
NomCom Member.  The full committee is as follows:

Derrick L Cogburn (Chair)
Javier Pinzón
Stuart Hamilton
Renate Bloem
Rudi Vansnick
Siranush Vardanyan


Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
Syracuse University
http://cotelco.syr.edu



On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations for
> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We have
> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the  
> following:
>
>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> endorsement for their candidature.
>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
> nomination is unsuccessful.
>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
> MAG and IGF work.
>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
> may also be mentioned.
>
> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
> their positions within the MAG.
>
> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> Monday, 26 January 2009.
>
> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
>
> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx? 
> s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a
>
> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
>
> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
> Siranush Vardanyan
> Stuart Hamilton
> Rudi Vansnick
> Renate Bloem
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kpeters at tldainc.org  Wed Jan 14 21:41:46 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:41:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
Message-ID: <20090114194146.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.582a46ed29.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090114/d39a12c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 15 01:42:10 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:42:10 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
	 <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901142242v73fb228cn906ed7f99f38a99@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 14 janv. 09 à 16:35, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :
>

<snip>

>
> But the point is, roughly speaking, that different contents/applications
> entering the same pipe of a given AS shouldn't be discriminated by this AS
> because of its nature, and this should apply to any AS on the internet
> route.

There are 2 things that spring to mind here:

1. ASs drop packets they aren't paid to handle (either peering or a
transit deal), so ASNs do discriminate based on that.

2. Some respect QoS bits more than others, which is obviously
discrimination, but not necessarily arbitrary or _bad_.

>
>> I guess
>> the point is that they should not use their market power to enter into
>> /arbitrary/ interconnection agreements because some other network provider
>
> Then we would have to define what is arbitrary and what is not, which
> doesn't advance the discussion.

Historically, and currently, networks can enter into an
interconnection/peering relationship as they wish.  Normally these
decisions are made rationally, based on business parameters.  However,
they can be made on personal factors (I know that person, and like
them, so will peer with them, even though the business case maybe a
50-50 call).

I think that regulating who can peer with which networks and on what
basis is a radical change from the current situation, although in some
places, interconnection is "mandatory" by government fiat.

We have it here in UG for example, and it's not enforced or enforceable.

The simple fact is that some networks may not want to peer with other
networks, "competing content" or not.

>
>> also offers competing content etc. Again, the whole point is "competing",
>> which leads to NN as non-exclusionary business deals.
>
> What kind of competition? What is competition and what is not? VoIP vs.
> mobile operators? IPTV vs. cable TV operators?

Very good questions.  Parminder says managed services are ok.  So does
this include IPTV? AT&T would say that it's U-Verse service is just
this.  Others would say it's "Internet Television"  Another worm in
the can IMO.


-- 
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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jan 15 06:11:03 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:11:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901142242v73fb228cn906ed7f99f38a99@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
 <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>
 <f65fb55e0901142242v73fb228cn906ed7f99f38a99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090115134055.1E0ABE15F0@smtp3.electricembers.net>

At 07:42 15/01/2009, McTim wrote:
> > But the point is, roughly speaking, that different contents/applications
> > entering the same pipe of a given AS shouldn't be discriminated by this AS
> > because of its nature, and this should apply to any AS on the internet
> > route.

This is in direct opposition to Patriot Act. The content may be 
examined and result in legal discriminatory actions such as having 
you extracted from home everywhere in the world and brought in front 
of an US inquirer.

The internet is a free coalition of free operators with different 
different cultures, business plan, legal environment, agenda and 
technical capacities who help the interrelations of supposedly free 
people. There is NO difference between Network and Life Neutrality. 
Today Life and therefore Network Neutrality is documented as being at 
a state of "unrestricted" war. Because everyone has the capacity to 
conduct his own wars with different simultaneous and globally 
conflicting alliances in the various externets (his virtual 
consutructed perspectives of the network).

The internet's interest is that it is so badly built that it cannot 
permit to enforce any kind of neutrality: there is therefore for 
everyone a bad reason why they should stay interneted.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 15 09:02:56 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:02:56 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496f3ce8.09a1660a.628a.17c3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
	 <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>
	 <f65fb55e0901142242v73fb228cn906ed7f99f38a99@mail.gmail.com>
	 <496f3ce8.09a1660a.628a.17c3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901150602y5987c5dg12aeca6e1921ec37@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jefsey,

I just want to point out that you made it seem like you were quoting
me in the below, when the actual text you quoted under my name came
from Meryem (i think).

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 07:42 15/01/2009, McTim wrote:
>>
>> > But the point is, roughly speaking, that different contents/applications
>> > entering the same pipe of a given AS shouldn't be discriminated by this
>> > AS
>> > because of its nature, and this should apply to any AS on the internet
>> > route.
>
> This is in direct opposition to Patriot Act. The content may be examined and
> result in legal discriminatory actions such as having you extracted from
> home everywhere in the world and brought in front of an US inquirer.
>
> The internet is a free coalition of free operators with different different
> cultures, business plan, legal environment, agenda and technical capacities
> who help the interrelations of supposedly free people. There is NO
> difference between Network and Life Neutrality. Today Life and therefore
> Network Neutrality is documented as being at a state of "unrestricted" war.
> Because everyone has the capacity to conduct his own wars with different
> simultaneous and globally conflicting alliances in the various externets
> (his virtual consutructed perspectives of the network).
>
> The internet's interest is that it is so badly built that it cannot permit
> to enforce any kind of neutrality: there is therefore for everyone a bad
> reason why they should stay interneted.


-- 
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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Jan 15 10:21:56 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:21:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <6DC078473F5844F782DAFF9F96C8D47E@IAN>
References: <4C1225B4755E4670BB1B56CD12E6D1C5@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <6DC078473F5844F782DAFF9F96C8D47E@IAN>
Message-ID: <ViNYaQmUS1bJFAmv@perry.co.uk>

In message <6DC078473F5844F782DAFF9F96C8D47E at IAN>, at 06:47:24 on Thu, 
15 Jan 2009, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>in pay-tv models users are in charge of what content they view, they 
>just have to choose which packages of content they pay for.

They aren't, however, in charge of how many bits-per-second the various 
MPEG coding is on the various channels.

Here in the UK I can get about thirty different channels, and at least 
half of them are so muddy, and full of MPEG artefacts, it's a pain to 
watch them.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan 15 10:20:45 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:20:45 -0200
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br>

People,

The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the topics
is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to start
this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and suggested
that constituencies should start looking for names. But since details of
the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush and have
a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might very
well depend on these rules.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations for
> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We have
> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:
> 
>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> endorsement for their candidature.
>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
> nomination is unsuccessful.
>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
> MAG and IGF work.
>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
> may also be mentioned.
> 
> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
> their positions within the MAG.
> 
> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> Monday, 26 January 2009.
> 
> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
> 
> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a
> 
> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
> 
> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
> Siranush Vardanyan
> Stuart Hamilton
> Rudi Vansnick
> Renate Bloem
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
www.ritsnet.org.br
------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jan 15 10:50:31 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>

Hi Carlos,

I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the February 
meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to replace a 
third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all of the 
rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25 people). 
About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most 
likely be the same again.
I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a process 
early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down, 
especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated about 
process delays in the first years.

jeanette

Carlos Afonso wrote:
> People,
> 
> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the topics
> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to start
> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
> 
> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and suggested
> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since details of
> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush and have
> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might very
> well depend on these rules.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations for
>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We have
>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:
>>
>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
>> endorsement for their candidature.
>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
>> nomination is unsuccessful.
>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
>> MAG and IGF work.
>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
>> may also be mentioned.
>>
>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
>> their positions within the MAG.
>>
>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
>> Monday, 26 January 2009.
>>
>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
>>
>> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a
>>
>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
>>
>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
>> Siranush Vardanyan
>> Stuart Hamilton
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> Renate Bloem
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 15 11:05:48 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:05:48 +0000
Subject: [governance] May IGF consultations
Message-ID: <496F5EDC.1040805@wzb.eu>

Hi,

we got the dates for the IGF consultations in May. Here they are:

3 May: Open Consultations
14-15 May: MAG Meeting

As usual, the meetings will be back-to-back with the WSIS cluster of 
events/CSTD meetings.


jeanette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From glaser at nic.br  Thu Jan 15 11:12:52 2009
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:12:52 -0200
Subject: [governance] May IGF consultations
In-Reply-To: <496F5EDC.1040805@wzb.eu>
References: <496F5EDC.1040805@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <496F6084.7000905@nic.br>


One Correction => 13 May =>13...13...13...13...

============================================
On 15/1/2009 14:05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we got the dates for the IGF consultations in May. Here they are:
>
> 3 May: Open Consultations
> 14-15 May: MAG Meeting
>
> As usual, the meetings will be back-to-back with the WSIS cluster of 
> events/CSTD meetings.
>
>
> jeanette
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090115/4a4aa152/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 15 11:16:21 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:16:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] May IGF consultations
In-Reply-To: <496F6084.7000905@nic.br>
References: <496F5EDC.1040805@wzb.eu> <496F6084.7000905@nic.br>
Message-ID: <496F6155.4050401@wzb.eu>



Right. I lost a 1 over the copy & paste.
Danke, Hartmut!
jeanette

Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote:
> 
> One Correction => 13 May =>13...13...13...13...
> 
> ============================================
> On 15/1/2009 14:05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we got the dates for the IGF consultations in May. Here they are:
>>
>> 3 May: Open Consultations
>> 14-15 May: MAG Meeting
>>
>> As usual, the meetings will be back-to-back with the WSIS cluster of 
>> events/CSTD meetings.
>>
>>
>> jeanette
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jan 15 12:40:26 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:40:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901150602y5987c5dg12aeca6e1921ec37@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com>
 <31862FAC-02F1-4686-BFFC-67708B8A6C44@ras.eu.org>
 <496E0636.6010306@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <60AFD554-AFA5-4888-8168-D523175BDB12@ras.eu.org>
 <f65fb55e0901142242v73fb228cn906ed7f99f38a99@mail.gmail.com>
 <496f3ce8.09a1660a.628a.17c3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
 <f65fb55e0901150602y5987c5dg12aeca6e1921ec37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090115190627.AA799E2205@smtp3.electricembers.net>

At 15:02 15/01/2009, McTim wrote:
>Hi Jefsey,
>
>I just want to point out that you made it seem like you were quoting
>me in the below, when the actual text you quoted under my name came
>from Meryem (i think).

Sorry.
However, you point out this way that this way my answer was soemwhat biaised.
And that even on such small things, network neutrality can be easily 
violated, even by error..
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 ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan 15 16:12:22 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:12:22 -0300
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br>

I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The MAG
itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for
suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to send
a list of names.

Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3
replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the entrants
chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a
better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

frt rgds

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> Hi Carlos,
> 
> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the
> February 
> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to
> replace a 
> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all of
> the 
> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25 people).
> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most 
> likely be the same again.
> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a process 
> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down, 
> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated about 
> process delays in the first years.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > People,
> > 
> > The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the
> topics
> > is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to
> start
> > this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
> > 
> > Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and
> suggested
> > that constituencies should start looking for names. But since
> details of
> > the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush and
> have
> > a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might
> very
> > well depend on these rules.
> > 
> > frt rgds
> > 
> > --c.a.
> > 
> > Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations
> for
> >> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
> >> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We
> have
> >> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
> >> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the
> following:
> >>
> >>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain
> that
> >> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> >> endorsement for their candidature.
> >>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical
> statement
> >> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe
> clearly
> >> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the
> Internet
> >> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person
> should
> >> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
> >> nomination is unsuccessful.
> >>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the
> nominated
> >> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
> >> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the
> degree
> >> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the
> civil
> >> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of
> the
> >> MAG and IGF work.
> >>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> >> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out
> their
> >> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing
> the
> >> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
> >> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society
> constituencies,
> >> may also be mentioned.
> >>
> >> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for
> the
> >> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil
> society
> >> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor
> to
> >> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the
> MAG
> >> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate
> for
> >> their positions within the MAG.
> >>
> >> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> >> Monday, 26 January 2009.
> >>
> >> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
> >>
> >>
> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7
> 6a
> >>
> >> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
> >> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
> >>
> >> Kindest regards,
> >>
> >> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
> >>
> >> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
> >> Siranush Vardanyan
> >> Stuart Hamilton
> >> Rudi Vansnick
> >> Renate Bloem
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >>
> > 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 15 16:26:27 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>

Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 
procedure:

*The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 
Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

*Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February 2009 
to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.
jeanette

carlos a. afonso wrote:
> I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The MAG
> itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for
> suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to send
> a list of names.
> 
> Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3
> replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the entrants
> chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a
> better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
> Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> 
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the
>> February 
>> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to
>> replace a 
>> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all of
>> the 
>> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25 people).
>> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
>> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most 
>> likely be the same again.
>> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a process 
>> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down, 
>> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated about 
>> process delays in the first years.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> People,
>>>
>>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the
>> topics
>>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to
>> start
>>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
>>>
>>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and
>> suggested
>>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since
>> details of
>>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush and
>> have
>>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might
>> very
>>> well depend on these rules.
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting nominations
>> for
>>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
>>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  We
>> have
>>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
>>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the
>> following:
>>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain
>> that
>>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
>>>> endorsement for their candidature.
>>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical
>> statement
>>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe
>> clearly
>>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the
>> Internet
>>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person
>> should
>>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
>>>> nomination is unsuccessful.
>>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the
>> nominated
>>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
>>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the
>> degree
>>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the
>> civil
>>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of
>> the
>>>> MAG and IGF work.
>>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
>>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out
>> their
>>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing
>> the
>>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
>>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society
>> constituencies,
>>>> may also be mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for
>> the
>>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil
>> society
>>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor
>> to
>>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the
>> MAG
>>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate
>> for
>>>> their positions within the MAG.
>>>>
>>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
>>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.
>>>>
>>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7
>> 6a
>>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
>>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
>>>>
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
>>>>
>>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
>>>> Siranush Vardanyan
>>>> Stuart Hamilton
>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>> Renate Bloem
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan 15 19:08:43 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:08:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br>

OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.

frt rgds

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 
> procedure:
> 
> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 
> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.
> 
> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February
> 2009 
> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.
> 
> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.
> jeanette
> 
> carlos a. afonso wrote:
> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The
> MAG
> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for
> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to
> send
> > a list of names.
> > 
> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3
> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the
> entrants
> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a
> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.
> > 
> > frt rgds
> > 
> > --c.a.
> > 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Carlos A. Afonso
> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> > 
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the
> >> February 
> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to
> >> replace a 
> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all
> of
> >> the 
> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25
> people).
> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most
> >> likely be the same again.
> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a
> process 
> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,
> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated
> about 
> >> process delays in the first years.
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >>> People,
> >>>
> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the
> >> topics
> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to
> >> start
> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
> >>>
> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and
> >> suggested
> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since
> >> details of
> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush
> and
> >> have
> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might
> >> very
> >>> well depend on these rules.
> >>>
> >>> frt rgds
> >>>
> >>> --c.a.
> >>>
> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
> >>>> Dear Colleagues,
> >>>>
> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
> nominations
> >> for
> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). 
> We
> >> have
> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the
> >> following:
> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain
> >> that
> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.
> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical
> >> statement
> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe
> >> clearly
> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the
> >> Internet
> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person
> >> should
> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if
> the
> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.
> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the
> >> nominated
> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on
> the
> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the
> >> degree
> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the
> >> civil
> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront
> of
> >> the
> >>>> MAG and IGF work.
> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out
> >> their
> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing
> >> the
> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner
> of
> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society
> >> constituencies,
> >>>> may also be mentioned.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected
> for
> >> the
> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil
> >> society
> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will
> endeavor
> >> to
> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the
> >> MAG
> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate
> >> for
> >>>> their positions within the MAG.
> >>>>
> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.
> >>>>
> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7
> >> 6a
> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do
> not
> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
> >>>>
> >>>> Kindest regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
> >>>>
> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan
> >>>> Stuart Hamilton
> >>>> Rudi Vansnick
> >>>> Renate Bloem
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>
> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From vanda at uol.com.br  Thu Jan 15 20:58:36 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini UOL)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:58:36 -0200
Subject: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>

 

Dear all

 

Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell
some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large
organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large
Organization  ( LACRALO) but 

we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time
trying)  and we need more information about their activities.

 I appreciate any information



 

Vanda Scartezini

ALAC – vice chair

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br

P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.

 

frt rgds

 

--c.a.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos A. Afonso

Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000

Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 

> procedure:

> 

> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 

> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

> 

> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February

> 2009 

> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

> 

> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

> jeanette

> 

> carlos a. afonso wrote:

> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The

> MAG

> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for

> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to

> send

> > a list of names.

> > 

> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3

> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the

> entrants

> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a

> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

> > 

> > frt rgds

> > 

> > --c.a.

> > 

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Carlos A. Afonso

> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000

> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> > 

> >> Hi Carlos,

> >>

> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the

> >> February 

> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to

> >> replace a 

> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all

> of

> >> the 

> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25

> people).

> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.

> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most

> >> likely be the same again.

> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a

> process 

> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,

> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated

> about 

> >> process delays in the first years.

> >>

> >> jeanette

> >>

> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:

> >>> People,

> >>>

> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the

> >> topics

> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to

> >> start

> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

> >>>

> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and

> >> suggested

> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since

> >> details of

> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush

> and

> >> have

> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might

> >> very

> >>> well depend on these rules.

> >>>

> >>> frt rgds

> >>>

> >>> --c.a.

> >>>

> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> >>>> Dear Colleagues,

> >>>>

> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting

> nominations

> >> for

> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet

> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). 

> We

> >> have

> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-

> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the

> >> following:

> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain

> >> that

> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's

> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.

> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical

> >> statement

> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe

> >> clearly

> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the

> >> Internet

> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person

> >> should

> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if

> the

> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.

> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the

> >> nominated

> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on

> the

> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the

> >> degree

> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the

> >> civil

> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront

> of

> >> the

> >>>> MAG and IGF work.

> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their

> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out

> >> their

> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing

> >> the

> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner

> of

> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society

> >> constituencies,

> >>>> may also be mentioned.

> >>>>

> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected

> for

> >> the

> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil

> >> society

> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will

> endeavor

> >> to

> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the

> >> MAG

> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate

> >> for

> >>>> their positions within the MAG.

> >>>>

> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on

> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.

> >>>>

> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>

> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7

> >> 6a

> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do

> not

> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

> >>>>

> >>>> Kindest regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

> >>>>

> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan

> >>>> Stuart Hamilton

> >>>> Rudi Vansnick

> >>>> Renate Bloem

> >>>> ____________________________________________________________

> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>>

> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> > 

> > 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

 

 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090115/9d39e953/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090115/9d39e953/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Jan 15 22:50:29 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Theme at Domain Pulse 2009
Message-ID: <407088.88186.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi all,

A conference that could interest some of you, especially given the meeting in Geneva at around the same time.

Cheers
David


Internet Governance Theme at Domain Pulse 2009
Domain Pulse 2009, an annual meeting organised by the registries of Austria (nic.at), Switzerland (SWITCH) and Germany (DENIC) will this year be held in Dresden, Germany on February 12 and 13.

The conference is the most significant conference in the German-speaking region on domain names, and this year the emphasis is on the Introduction of new Top Level Domains plus also internet governance. And fear not English speakers, there are real-time translations of presentations in German into English, and vice versa when presentations are in English.

This year Domain Pulse will be held at the Maritim Hotel and Internationales Congress Center in Dresden and special conference rates are available in the Maritim Hotel and Hotel Kempinski. Registrations for the conference is free.

Presentations this year include:
 * The web's a stage - philosophical remarks about living in the Internet world by Prof. Peter Sloterdijk, Hochschule für Gestaltung Karlsruhe
 * Introduction of new Top Level Domains - What lies ahead of us? by Olof Nordling from ICANN and Tim Schumacher from SEDO and further stakeholders on the topic.
 * Online Reputation Management – All about XING, Facebook and others 
 * Internet Governance - Report of IGF 2008 by Jeannette Hofmann, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung
 * Update from DENIC, nic.at and SWITCH
 * Advertising and the Internet: Volume, business models and perspectives by Oliver Sender, Nielsen Online.

There is also a conference dinner on the 12th included in the free registration.

For more information and to register, go to http://www.domainpulse.de/.

 ---------


David Goldstein
address: 4/3 Abbott Street
COOGEE NSW 2034
AUSTRALIA
email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au
phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)


"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery



      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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jan 16 04:08:06 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:08:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
 <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>
 <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <W9yotzc25EcJFAu0@perry.co.uk>

In message <496FAA03.70009 at wzb.eu>, at 21:26:27 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, 
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes

 >The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 
 >Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

In particular:  "One of the criteria passed on to the Secretary-General 
would be the need for continuity and the request that approximately 2/3 
of the members of the current group be carried over into the new group."

>*Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February 
>2009 to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.
>
>The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

That'll be the old (v2) MAG, of course, which only dates back to last 
August (for the September meeting).

Are they aiming for rotation before the May meeting this year, or 
waiting for September again?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Jan 16 04:23:31 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:23:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <W9yotzc25EcJFAu0@perry.co.uk>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <W9yotzc25EcJFAu0@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <49705213.70703@wzb.eu>




> That'll be the old (v2) MAG, of course, which only dates back to last 
> August (for the September meeting).
> 
> Are they aiming for rotation before the May meeting this year, or 
> waiting for September again?

The ambitious goal is to get it done before the May meeting.
Rotation is complicated. The secretariat needs the nominations from all 
groups in order to do the balancing across regions, gender, etc.
jeanette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ginger at paque.net  Fri Jan 16 04:49:18 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:19:18 -0430
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG --  Internauta Vzla.
 (off-list)
In-Reply-To: <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
Message-ID: <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP>

Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.

Best, Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] 
Enviado el: Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Asunto: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

 

Dear all

 

Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell
some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large
organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large
Organization  ( LACRALO) but 

we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time
trying)  and we need more information about their activities.

 I appreciate any information



 

Vanda Scartezini

ALAC – vice chair

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br

P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.

 

frt rgds

 

--c.a.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos A. Afonso

Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000

Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 

> procedure:

> 

> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 

> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

> 

> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February

> 2009 

> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

> 

> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

> jeanette

> 

> carlos a. afonso wrote:

> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The

> MAG

> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for

> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to

> send

> > a list of names.

> > 

> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3

> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the

> entrants

> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a

> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

> > 

> > frt rgds

> > 

> > --c.a.

> > 

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Carlos A. Afonso

> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000

> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> > 

> >> Hi Carlos,

> >>

> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the

> >> February 

> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to

> >> replace a 

> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all

> of

> >> the 

> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25

> people).

> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.

> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most

> >> likely be the same again.

> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a

> process 

> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,

> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated

> about 

> >> process delays in the first years.

> >>

> >> jeanette

> >>

> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:

> >>> People,

> >>>

> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the

> >> topics

> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to

> >> start

> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

> >>>

> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and

> >> suggested

> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since

> >> details of

> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush

> and

> >> have

> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might

> >> very

> >>> well depend on these rules.

> >>>

> >>> frt rgds

> >>>

> >>> --c.a.

> >>>

> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> >>>> Dear Colleagues,

> >>>>

> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting

> nominations

> >> for

> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet

> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). 

> We

> >> have

> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-

> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the

> >> following:

> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain

> >> that

> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's

> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.

> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical

> >> statement

> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe

> >> clearly

> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the

> >> Internet

> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person

> >> should

> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if

> the

> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.

> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the

> >> nominated

> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on

> the

> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the

> >> degree

> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the

> >> civil

> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront

> of

> >> the

> >>>> MAG and IGF work.

> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their

> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out

> >> their

> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing

> >> the

> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner

> of

> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society

> >> constituencies,

> >>>> may also be mentioned.

> >>>>

> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected

> for

> >> the

> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil

> >> society

> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will

> endeavor

> >> to

> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the

> >> MAG

> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate

> >> for

> >>>> their positions within the MAG.

> >>>>

> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on

> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.

> >>>>

> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>

> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7

> >> 6a

> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do

> not

> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

> >>>>

> >>>> Kindest regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

> >>>>

> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan

> >>>> Stuart Hamilton

> >>>> Rudi Vansnick

> >>>> Renate Bloem

> >>>> ____________________________________________________________

> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>>

> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> > 

> > 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

 

 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/55f7eb82/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/55f7eb82/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From plzak at arin.net  Fri Jan 16 10:02:59 2009
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:02:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG --  Internauta Vzla.
In-Reply-To: <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
 <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>
 <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
 <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br>
 <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
 <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>

Ginger,

Isn't Internauta the Spanish form of Internaut? Internaut is a term used to denote someone associated with the Internet like Astronaut. So could pertain to the IETF or ISOC type of activity in Venezuela. I think Vint may have something to do with the term internaut. I will ask him and get back to you.

Ray

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'
Subject: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla. (off-list)

Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.
Best, Ginger

________________________________
De: Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
Enviado el: Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Asunto: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations




Dear all



Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large Organization  ( LACRALO) but

we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time trying)  and we need more information about their activities.

 I appreciate any information

[cid:image001.jpg at 01C977C1.9C5799F0]


Vanda Scartezini

ALAC - vice chair

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br
P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations



OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.



frt rgds



--c.a.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos A. Afonso

Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





-----Original Message-----

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000

Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations



> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the

> procedure:

>

> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the

> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

>

> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February

> 2009

> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

>

> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

> jeanette

>

> carlos a. afonso wrote:

> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The

> MAG

> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for

> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to

> send

> > a list of names.

> >

> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3

> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the

> entrants

> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a

> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

> >

> > frt rgds

> >

> > --c.a.

> >

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Carlos A. Afonso

> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> >

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000

> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> >

> >> Hi Carlos,

> >>

> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the

> >> February

> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to

> >> replace a

> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all

> of

> >> the

> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25

> people).

> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.

> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most

> >> likely be the same again.

> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a

> process

> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,

> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated

> about

> >> process delays in the first years.

> >>

> >> jeanette

> >>

> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:

> >>> People,

> >>>

> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the

> >> topics

> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to

> >> start

> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

> >>>

> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and

> >> suggested

> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since

> >> details of

> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush

> and

> >> have

> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might

> >> very

> >>> well depend on these rules.

> >>>

> >>> frt rgds

> >>>

> >>> --c.a.

> >>>

> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> >>>> Dear Colleagues,

> >>>>

> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting

> nominations

> >> for

> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet

> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).

> We

> >> have

> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-

> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the

> >> following:

> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain

> >> that

> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's

> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.

> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical

> >> statement

> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe

> >> clearly

> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the

> >> Internet

> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person

> >> should

> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if

> the

> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.

> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the

> >> nominated

> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on

> the

> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the

> >> degree

> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the

> >> civil

> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront

> of

> >> the

> >>>> MAG and IGF work.

> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their

> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out

> >> their

> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing

> >> the

> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner

> of

> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society

> >> constituencies,

> >>>> may also be mentioned.

> >>>>

> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected

> for

> >> the

> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil

> >> society

> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will

> endeavor

> >> to

> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the

> >> MAG

> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate

> >> for

> >>>> their positions within the MAG.

> >>>>

> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on

> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.

> >>>>

> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>

> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7

> >> 6a

> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do

> not

> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

> >>>>

> >>>> Kindest regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

> >>>>

> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan

> >>>> Stuart Hamilton

> >>>> Rudi Vansnick

> >>>> Renate Bloem

> >>>> ____________________________________________________________

> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>>

> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> >

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance





____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/b1e7f2ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/b1e7f2ba/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Jan 16 10:15:26 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:15:26 -0200
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG --  Internauta Vzla.
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <4970A48E.3060800@rits.org.br>

In both Portuguese and Spanish, "internauta" is any Internet user.

--c.a.

Ray Plzak wrote:
> Ginger,
> 
> Isn't Internauta the Spanish form of Internaut? Internaut is a term used to denote someone associated with the Internet like Astronaut. So could pertain to the IETF or ISOC type of activity in Venezuela. I think Vint may have something to do with the term internaut. I will ask him and get back to you.
> 
> Ray
> 
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'
> Subject: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla. (off-list)
> 
> Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.
> Best, Ginger
> 
> ________________________________
> De: Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
> Asunto: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all
> 
> 
> 
> Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large Organization  ( LACRALO) but
> 
> we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time trying)  and we need more information about their activities.
> 
>  I appreciate any information
> 
> [cid:image001.jpg at 01C977C1.9C5799F0]
> 
> 
> Vanda Scartezini
> 
> ALAC - vice chair
> 
> Tel - +55113266.6253
> 
> Mob- +55118181.1464
> 
> vanda at uol.com.br
> P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
> Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> 
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> 
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> 
> Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> 
> To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
> 
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000
> 
> Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> 
> 
> 
>> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the
> 
>> procedure:
> 
> 
>> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the
> 
>> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.
> 
> 
>> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February
> 
>> 2009
> 
>> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.
> 
> 
>> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.
> 
>> jeanette
> 
> 
>> carlos a. afonso wrote:
> 
>>> I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The
> 
>> MAG
> 
>>> itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for
> 
>>> suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to
> 
>> send
> 
>>> a list of names.
> 
> 
>>> Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3
> 
>>> replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the
> 
>> entrants
> 
>>> chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a
> 
>>> better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.
> 
> 
>>> frt rgds
> 
> 
>>> --c.a.
> 
> 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
>>> Carlos A. Afonso
> 
>>> Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
> 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
> 
>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> 
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
> 
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
> 
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
> 
> 
>>>> Hi Carlos,
> 
> 
>>>> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the
> 
>>>> February
> 
>>>> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to
> 
>>>> replace a
> 
>>>> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all
> 
>> of
> 
>>>> the
> 
>>>> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25
> 
>> people).
> 
>>>> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
> 
>>>> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most
> 
>>>> likely be the same again.
> 
>>>> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a
> 
>> process
> 
>>>> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,
> 
>>>> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated
> 
>> about
> 
>>>> process delays in the first years.
> 
> 
>>>> jeanette
> 
> 
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
>>>>> People,
> 
> 
>>>>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the
> 
>>>> topics
> 
>>>>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to
> 
>>>> start
> 
>>>>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
> 
> 
>>>>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and
> 
>>>> suggested
> 
>>>>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since
> 
>>>> details of
> 
>>>>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush
> 
>> and
> 
>>>> have
> 
>>>>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might
> 
>>>> very
> 
>>>>> well depend on these rules.
> 
> 
>>>>> frt rgds
> 
> 
>>>>> --c.a.
> 
> 
>>>>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
> 
>> nominations
> 
>>>> for
> 
>>>>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
> 
>>>>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).
> 
>> We
> 
>>>> have
> 
>>>>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
> 
>>>>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the
> 
>>>> following:
> 
>>>>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain
> 
>>>> that
> 
>>>>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> 
>>>>>> endorsement for their candidature.
> 
>>>>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical
> 
>>>> statement
> 
>>>>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe
> 
>>>> clearly
> 
>>>>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the
> 
>>>> Internet
> 
>>>>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person
> 
>>>> should
> 
>>>>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if
> 
>> the
> 
>>>>>> nomination is unsuccessful.
> 
>>>>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the
> 
>>>> nominated
> 
>>>>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on
> 
>> the
> 
>>>>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the
> 
>>>> degree
> 
>>>>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the
> 
>>>> civil
> 
>>>>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront
> 
>> of
> 
>>>> the
> 
>>>>>> MAG and IGF work.
> 
>>>>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> 
>>>>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out
> 
>>>> their
> 
>>>>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing
> 
>>>> the
> 
>>>>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner
> 
>> of
> 
>>>>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society
> 
>>>> constituencies,
> 
>>>>>> may also be mentioned.
> 
> 
>>>>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected
> 
>> for
> 
>>>> the
> 
>>>>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil
> 
>>>> society
> 
>>>>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will
> 
>> endeavor
> 
>>>> to
> 
>>>>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the
> 
>>>> MAG
> 
>>>>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate
> 
>>>> for
> 
>>>>>> their positions within the MAG.
> 
> 
>>>>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> 
>>>>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.
> 
> 
>>>>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7
> 
>>>> 6a
> 
>>>>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do
> 
>> not
> 
>>>>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
> 
> 
>>>>>> Kindest regards,
> 
> 
>>>>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
> 
> 
>>>>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
> 
>>>>>> Siranush Vardanyan
> 
>>>>>> Stuart Hamilton
> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
> 
>>>>>> Renate Bloem
> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
>>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> 
>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> 
>>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> 
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> 
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
> 
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> 
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> 
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
www.ritsnet.org.br
------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ginger at paque.net  Fri Jan 16 11:25:23 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:55:23 -0430
Subject: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG --  Internauta Vzla.  is an
 organization
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP>

Ray, both you an Carlos Alonzo are correct in your translations of the
phrase. However, in this case, I believe that Vanda is referring to the
organization that uses this term in their name.

 

There is such an organization in Argentina – Asociación Internauta Argentina
(http://www.internauta.org.ar/) and in Spain – Asociación de Internautas
(http://www.internautas.org/) .

 

Thanks for your comments and help.

 

Saludos,

Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 16 de Enero de 2009 10:33 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Asunto: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
(off-list)

 

Ginger,

 

Isn’t Internauta the Spanish form of Internaut? Internaut is a term used to
denote someone associated with the Internet like Astronaut. So could pertain
to the IETF or ISOC type of activity in Venezuela. I think Vint may have
something to do with the term internaut. I will ask him and get back to you.

 

Ray

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'
Subject: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
(off-list)

 

Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.

Best, Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] 
Enviado el: Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Asunto: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

 

Dear all

 

Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell
some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large
organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large
Organization  ( LACRALO) but 

we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time
trying)  and we need more information about their activities.

 I appreciate any information



 

Vanda Scartezini

ALAC – vice chair

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br

P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.

 

frt rgds

 

--c.a.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos A. Afonso

Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000

Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 

> procedure:

> 

> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 

> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

> 

> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February

> 2009 

> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

> 

> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

> jeanette

> 

> carlos a. afonso wrote:

> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The

> MAG

> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for

> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to

> send

> > a list of names.

> > 

> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3

> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the

> entrants

> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a

> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

> > 

> > frt rgds

> > 

> > --c.a.

> > 

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Carlos A. Afonso

> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000

> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> > 

> >> Hi Carlos,

> >>

> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the

> >> February 

> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to

> >> replace a 

> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all

> of

> >> the 

> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25

> people).

> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.

> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most

> >> likely be the same again.

> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a

> process 

> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,

> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated

> about 

> >> process delays in the first years.

> >>

> >> jeanette

> >>

> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:

> >>> People,

> >>>

> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the

> >> topics

> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to

> >> start

> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

> >>>

> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and

> >> suggested

> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since

> >> details of

> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush

> and

> >> have

> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might

> >> very

> >>> well depend on these rules.

> >>>

> >>> frt rgds

> >>>

> >>> --c.a.

> >>>

> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> >>>> Dear Colleagues,

> >>>>

> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting

> nominations

> >> for

> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet

> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). 

> We

> >> have

> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-

> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the

> >> following:

> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain

> >> that

> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's

> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.

> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical

> >> statement

> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe

> >> clearly

> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the

> >> Internet

> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person

> >> should

> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if

> the

> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.

> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the

> >> nominated

> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on

> the

> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the

> >> degree

> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the

> >> civil

> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront

> of

> >> the

> >>>> MAG and IGF work.

> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their

> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out

> >> their

> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing

> >> the

> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner

> of

> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society

> >> constituencies,

> >>>> may also be mentioned.

> >>>>

> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected

> for

> >> the

> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil

> >> society

> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will

> endeavor

> >> to

> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the

> >> MAG

> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate

> >> for

> >>>> their positions within the MAG.

> >>>>

> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on

> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.

> >>>>

> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>

> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7

> >> 6a

> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do

> not

> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

> >>>>

> >>>> Kindest regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

> >>>>

> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan

> >>>> Stuart Hamilton

> >>>> Rudi Vansnick

> >>>> Renate Bloem

> >>>> ____________________________________________________________

> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>>

> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> > 

> > 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

 

 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/bdef8acb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/bdef8acb/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jan 16 12:27:43 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini UOL)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:27:43 -0200
Subject: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG --  Internauta Vzla.  is
 an organization
In-Reply-To: <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net> <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <00ed01c977ff$c271bf10$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>

HI all 

 

There are many  not for profit organizations using this name, and some of
them are also ALS and working with us in LACRALO as InternautaBrasil &
InternautaArgentina  and they – Internauta Venezuela the last one to apply
to become an ALS. 

One colleague from Nic Venezuela already answered my email and I will
contact them to  try to get the  information. Thanks for the interest

 Best regards, 

 



 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Alameda Santos 1470 #1407

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br

P  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."

 

 

  _____  

De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de janeiro de 2009 14:25
Para: 'Ray Plzak'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla. is an
organization

 

Ray, both you an Carlos Alonzo are correct in your translations of the
phrase. However, in this case, I believe that Vanda is referring to the
organization that uses this term in their name.

 

There is such an organization in Argentina – Asociación Internauta Argentina
(http://www.internauta.org.ar/) and in Spain – Asociación de Internautas
(http://www.internautas.org/) .

 

Thanks for your comments and help.

 

Saludos,

Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 16 de Enero de 2009 10:33 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Asunto: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
(off-list)

 

Ginger,

 

Isn’t Internauta the Spanish form of Internaut? Internaut is a term used to
denote someone associated with the Internet like Astronaut. So could pertain
to the IETF or ISOC type of activity in Venezuela. I think Vint may have
something to do with the term internaut. I will ask him and get back to you.

 

Ray

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'
Subject: RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
(off-list)

 

Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.

Best, Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] 
Enviado el: Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Asunto: RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

 

Dear all

 

Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell
some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large
organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large
Organization  ( LACRALO) but 

we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time
trying)  and we need more information about their activities.

 I appreciate any information



 

Vanda Scartezini

ALAC – vice chair

Tel - +55113266.6253

Mob- +55118181.1464

vanda at uol.com.br

P  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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.

 

frt rgds

 

--c.a.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos A. Afonso

Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000

Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

 

> Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the 

> procedure:

> 

> *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the 

> Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.

> 

> *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February

> 2009 

> to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.

> 

> The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.

> jeanette

> 

> carlos a. afonso wrote:

> > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The

> MAG

> > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for

> > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to

> send

> > a list of names.

> > 

> > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3

> > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the

> entrants

> > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a

> > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.

> > 

> > frt rgds

> > 

> > --c.a.

> > 

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Carlos A. Afonso

> > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > 

> > 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000

> > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations

> > 

> >> Hi Carlos,

> >>

> >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the

> >> February 

> >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to

> >> replace a 

> >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all

> of

> >> the 

> >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25

> people).

> >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.

> >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most

> >> likely be the same again.

> >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a

> process 

> >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,

> >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated

> about 

> >> process delays in the first years.

> >>

> >> jeanette

> >>

> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:

> >>> People,

> >>>

> >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the

> >> topics

> >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to

> >> start

> >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.

> >>>

> >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and

> >> suggested

> >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since

> >> details of

> >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush

> and

> >> have

> >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might

> >> very

> >>> well depend on these rules.

> >>>

> >>> frt rgds

> >>>

> >>> --c.a.

> >>>

> >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:

> >>>> Dear Colleagues,

> >>>>

> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting

> nominations

> >> for

> >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet

> >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). 

> We

> >> have

> >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-

> >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the

> >> following:

> >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain

> >> that

> >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's

> >>>> endorsement for their candidature.

> >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical

> >> statement

> >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe

> >> clearly

> >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the

> >> Internet

> >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person

> >> should

> >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if

> the

> >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.

> >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the

> >> nominated

> >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on

> the

> >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the

> >> degree

> >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the

> >> civil

> >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront

> of

> >> the

> >>>> MAG and IGF work.

> >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their

> >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out

> >> their

> >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing

> >> the

> >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner

> of

> >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society

> >> constituencies,

> >>>> may also be mentioned.

> >>>>

> >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected

> for

> >> the

> >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil

> >> society

> >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will

> endeavor

> >> to

> >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the

> >> MAG

> >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate

> >> for

> >>>> their positions within the MAG.

> >>>>

> >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on

> >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.

> >>>>

> >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>

> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7

> >> 6a

> >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do

> not

> >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

> >>>>

> >>>> Kindest regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

> >>>>

> >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

> >>>> Siranush Vardanyan

> >>>> Stuart Hamilton

> >>>> Rudi Vansnick

> >>>> Renate Bloem

> >>>> ____________________________________________________________

> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>>

> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> > 

> > 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

 

 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/23f2f498/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/23f2f498/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/23f2f498/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Fri Jan 16 15:26:17 2009
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:26:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] PLEASE BEGIN NEW EMAILS [Internauta Vzla. is an
 organization]
Message-ID: <ec8caada0901161226q70a99bdfjd1fc9cec266c9635@mail.gmail.com>

Dear List Members

A humble request that you DO NOT use an INCOMING email from the list to
raise a different subject - kindly initiate YOUR OWN email. Some of us spend
a lot of time in personalizing email delivery systems to bring you ONLY WHAT
YOU want. Being lazy and using incoming mail to raise different issues
defeats that purpose and annoys plenty.

Best regards,

Rui

On 16/01/2009, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>
>  Ray, both you an Carlos Alonzo are correct in your translations of the
> phrase. However, in this case, I believe that Vanda is referring to the
> organization that uses this term in their name.
>
>
>
> There is such an organization in Argentina – Asociación Internauta
> Argentina (http://www.internauta.org.ar/) and in Spain – Asociación de
> Internautas (http://www.internautas.org/) .
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments and help.
>
>
>
> Saludos,
>
> Ginger
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net]
> *Enviado el:* Viernes, 16 de Enero de 2009 10:33 a.m.
> *Para:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> *Asunto:* RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
> (off-list)
>
>
>
> Ginger,
>
>
>
> Isn't Internauta the Spanish form of Internaut? Internaut is a term used to
> denote someone associated with the Internet like Astronaut. So could pertain
> to the IETF or ISOC type of activity in Venezuela. I think Vint may have
> something to do with the term internaut. I will ask him and get back to you.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 16, 2009 4:49 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vanda Scartezini UOL'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG -- Internauta Vzla.
> (off-list)
>
>
>
> Vanda, I will contact you off list about this.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* Vanda Scartezini UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
> *Enviado el:* Jueves, 15 de Enero de 2009 09:29 p.m.
> *Para:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'carlos a. afonso'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
> *Asunto:* RES: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> Does  anyone know the organization Internauta Venezuela?  If yes could tell
> some words about them? They applied to be an ALS at ICANN At Large
> organization under the Latin America and Carebbean Regional At Large
> Organization  ( LACRALO) but
>
> we are not able to contact them by phone ( nobody answer  - long time
> trying)  and we need more information about their activities.
>
>  I appreciate any information
>
> * *
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *ALAC – vice chair*
>
> *Tel - +55113266.6253*
>
> *Mob- +55118181.1464*
>
> *vanda at uol.com.br***
>
> *P  **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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2009 22:09
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
> Assunto: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
>
>
>
> OK, Jean. Let us see how it goes.
>
>
>
> frt rgds
>
>
>
> --c.a.
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
>
> Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>
> To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:26:27 +0000
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
>
>
>
> > Carlos, have a look at the IGF website. It is quite clear about the
>
> > procedure:
>
> >
>
> > *The principles and modalities of the MAG renewal are set out in the
>
> > Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28 February 2008.
>
> >
>
> > *Please submit your proposals to the IGF Secretariat by 15 February
>
> > 2009
>
> > to allow for a timely renewal of the MAG.
>
> >
>
> > The MAG meets about 2 weeks after the deadline for submissions.
>
> > jeanette
>
> >
>
> > carlos a. afonso wrote:
>
> > > I do not know either which rules will be discussed, Jeanette. The
>
> > MAG
>
> > > itself will decide. The point is the secretariat is asking for
>
> > > suggestions on MAG renewal, and as I understood this is not just to
>
> > send
>
> > > a list of names.
>
> > >
>
> > > Personally I have at least one question: how will the second 1/3
>
> > > replacement proceed? Everyone will be in the same boat, or the
>
> > entrants
>
> > > chosen in the first 1/3 replacement will remain so we can ensure a
>
> > > better rotation? I am sure people will have other questions.
>
> > >
>
> > > frt rgds
>
> > >
>
> > > --c.a.
>
> > >
>
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > Carlos A. Afonso
>
> > > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
>
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
>
> > > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:50:31 +0000
>
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] 2009 IGC Call for MAG Nominations
>
> > >
>
> > >> Hi Carlos,
>
> > >>
>
> > >> I don't understand what rules you expect to be discussed at the
>
> > >> February
>
> > >> meeting. From what I understand, the MAG sticks to the goal to
>
> > >> replace a
>
> > >> third of its membership. We can also expect that most of not all
>
> > of
>
> > >> the
>
> > >> rotation will be born by the original members of the MAG (25
>
> > people).
>
> > >> About 15 of the original members will be replaced.
>
> > >> The other selection criteria (region, gender, expertise) will most
>
> > >> likely be the same again.
>
> > >> I think it is very good that for once we managed to start a
>
> > process
>
> > >> early. I cannot see any reason why we should now slow things down,
>
> > >> especially as we are the group that used to be most frustrated
>
> > about
>
> > >> process delays in the first years.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> jeanette
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
> > >>> People,
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> The current MAG will meet at the end of February, and one of the
>
> > >> topics
>
> > >>> is its own renewal. UN clearance has been given to the chair to
>
> > >> start
>
> > >>> this renewal, but rules have yet to be reviewed.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Markus has asked for suggestions on the renewal process, and
>
> > >> suggested
>
> > >>> that constituencies should start looking for names. But since
>
> > >> details of
>
> > >>> the rules are not yet in place, I think we do not need to rush
>
> > and
>
> > >> have
>
> > >>> a list ready before the Feb. meeting. Indication of names might
>
> > >> very
>
> > >>> well depend on these rules.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> frt rgds
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> --c.a.
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>> Derrick L. Cogburn wrote:
>
> > >>>> Dear Colleagues,
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
>
> > nominations
>
> > >> for
>
> > >>>> our recommendations for civil society members of the Internet
>
> > >>>> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).
>
> > We
>
> > >> have
>
> > >>>> designed a webform to collect our nominations - including self-
>
> > >>>> nominations.  In making nominations, please keep in mind the
>
> > >> following:
>
> > >>>>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain
>
> > >> that
>
> > >>>> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
>
> > >>>> endorsement for their candidature.
>
> > >>>>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical
>
> > >> statement
>
> > >>>> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe
>
> > >> clearly
>
> > >>>> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the
>
> > >> Internet
>
> > >>>> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person
>
> > >> should
>
> > >>>> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if
>
> > the
>
> > >>>> nomination is unsuccessful.
>
> > >>>>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the
>
> > >> nominated
>
> > >>>> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on
>
> > the
>
> > >>>> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the
>
> > >> degree
>
> > >>>> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the
>
> > >> civil
>
> > >>>> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront
>
> > of
>
> > >> the
>
> > >>>> MAG and IGF work.
>
> > >>>>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
>
> > >>>> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out
>
> > >> their
>
> > >>>> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing
>
> > >> the
>
> > >>>> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner
>
> > of
>
> > >>>> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society
>
> > >> constituencies,
>
> > >>>> may also be mentioned.
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected
>
> > for
>
> > >> the
>
> > >>>> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil
>
> > >> society
>
> > >>>> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will
>
> > endeavor
>
> > >> to
>
> > >>>> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the
>
> > >> MAG
>
> > >>>> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate
>
> > >> for
>
> > >>>> their positions within the MAG.
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
>
> > >>>> Monday, 26 January 2009.
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> To begin the nomination process, please click on the link below:
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>
>
> > http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e7
>
> > >> 6a
>
> > >>>> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do
>
> > not
>
> > >>>> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Kindest regards,
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
>
> > >>>> Siranush Vardanyan
>
> > >>>> Stuart Hamilton
>
> > >>>> Rudi Vansnick
>
> > >>>> Renate Bloem
>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
>
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> > >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> > >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>
> > >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>>
>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
>
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> > >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> > >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > >>
>
> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
>
> > >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > For all list information and functions, see:
>
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/02d13ae9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090116/02d13ae9/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be  Fri Jan 16 15:48:01 2009
From: Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:48:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internautas
In-Reply-To: <00ed01c977ff$c271bf10$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net> <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP> <00ed01c977ff$c271bf10$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
Message-ID: <4970F281.5040809@skynet.be>

Good evening:

Since this beautiful subject engenders such interest, allow me to join in.

The root of Internauts is the same as the root for Argonauts, Nautical 
and the Nautical Almanac. It is about Sailors, Navigantes, or if you 
prefer, Surfers.

In any event, with due deference to ISOC and the IETF, it is not limited 
to them or to any other sub-set.
The Internet is for All internauts.

Regards to you all,

CW
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 17 01:20:07 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:50:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
Message-ID: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>

Dear All

The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting 
views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be 
considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's 
ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) 
mandated that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation 
with IGF participants'. It is the first time that open consultations 
will be for 2 days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be 
exclusively devoted to considering this particular issue.

Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who 
gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form 
comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in 
Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all 
process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have 
important bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what 
may constitute 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on 
continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should 
also put in our substantive comments on the continuation of the IGF 
right away.

Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;

(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we 
will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, 
specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason, 
not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be 
suitably strengthened.

(2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.

(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be 
able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global 
public interest.

Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the 
synthesis paper on this subject.

parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/43222409/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Review of the IGF.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/43222409/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From guru at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 17 02:22:42 2009
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:52:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] FCC Could Drop Filtering For Free Internet Plan
Message-ID: <49718742.7030509@itforchange.net>

Last month I had made a posting on the  plan of FCC to provide free 
broadband to all in the US 
(http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-12/msg00011.html). One 
controversial aspect of that  plan was that FCC had intended to 'filter' 
the net. There is now an announcement that this provision to filter is 
being dropped (see article below my mail)

At this time, the Indian Parliament is also considering an 'right to 
education bill', the essential feature of which is a guarantee from the 
State that every child will be able to go to school. This is beyond the 
'right to go to school' which suggests that those with resources can. 
Even 60 years after independence, millions of Indian children do not go 
to school, or drop out of school, and not being able to afford primary 
schooling is an important cause. And ensuring all children do go to 
school is an imperative for any society that claims to respect human 
rights ... after all, illiterate/ignorant children and adults are not 
likely to be even aware of many of their rights or of others .. (for 
more on this read John Dewey on democracy and education)

Likewise, if increasingly in todays world, access to the internet can be 
considered an essential part of ones learning and development, then its 
equitable access (meaning that it be available to ALL, not only to those 
who can afford it) is essential to ensuring an inclusive and rights 
oriented information society ...  And the FCC's plans are perhaps even 
more relevant and required in the rest of the world.

In response to my earlier posting, Milton had expressed a fear that "And 
PLEASE note that this is a CENSORED internet, which is precisely what 
some of us fear will be the price of government-provided "internet for 
all." . Well ... the plan has been revised to keep the free internet 
access plan minus the filtering aspect.... so I hope the objection to 
the provision of 'free internet for all' is no longer applicable... And 
if even free market fundamentalists (not intended as a pejorative term) 
agree public provisioning of education on non-market terms is essential 
to a democratic society, especially in developing country contexts, then 
we should accept its extrapolation to the internet as a logical extension.

regards,
Guru

http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/regulation/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NLGSGEISUTUCCQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=212700227&cid=tab_art_tele

FCC Could Drop Filtering For Free Internet Plan

In hopes of getting free wireless broadband passed before he's replaced, 
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the winner of the AWS-3 spectrum wouldn't 
have to filter adult content.

By Marin Perez
InformationWeek
December 30, 2008 12:59 PM

The Federal Communications Commission's goal of universal Internet 
access may have new life as Chairman Kevin Martin said he has revised 
his proposal for free wireless broadband.

Martin has endorsed auctioning off the Advanced Wireless Services-3 band 
with the winner having to dedicate 25% of the spectrum to provide free 
Internet access. Much to the chagrin of civil liberties groups, Martin's 
plan required the winner to provide a filter for pornographic or other 
inappropriate material.

The chairman has retooled the plan, though, and said he's dropping the 
filtering requirement.

"A lot of public-interest advocates have said they would support this, 
but we're concerned about the filter," Martin told Ars Technica. "Well, 
now there's an item in front of the commissioners and it no longer has 
the filter. And I've already voted for it without the filter now. So, 
it's already got one vote."

The free wireless broadband plan was originally scheduled to be voted on 
earlier this month, but Martin canceled the vote after facing pressure 
from politicians and telecoms. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Rep. 
Henry Waxman, D-Calif., urged Martin to drop the free Internet proposal 
in order for the FCC to focus on the upcoming switchover to digital 
television signals.

The telecoms and ISPs have never been a fan of this proposal, and 
T-Mobile in particular has expressed concern that the free Internet 
would interfere with its service on the nearby AWS-1 spectrum. The CTIA 
has also said the business model for free Internet is doomed to fail, 
pointing to the collapse of municipal Wi-Fi ventures.

Startup M2Z Networks is a major proponent of the free Internet plan, and 
it said the wireless telecoms are just afraid of competition. The 
company said the business model would differ from defunct ad-based free 
services like NetZero by partnering with search companies to utilize 
location-based information for targeted, relevant ads. Additionally, 
since the FCC would require a minimum connection speed of only 768 Kbps, 
the AWS-3 spectrum winner could also offer a premium service at a faster 
connection.

Martin, who will likely be replaced by the incoming Obama 
administration, may get another crack at the free Internet plan at the 
next Open Commission meeting Jan. 15. That meeting's agenda has not been 
set yet, but Martin said the January meeting typically just reports on 
the status of the industry

-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change
www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel:98454 37730
http://ITforChange.net 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/b76c6296/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From pwilson at apnic.net  Sat Jan 17 03:15:56 2009
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:15:56 +1000
Subject: [governance] Internautas
In-Reply-To: <4970F281.5040809@skynet.be>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu>
 <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu>
 <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu>
 <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br>
 <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio>
 <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net>
 <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <00ed01c977ff$c271bf10$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <4970F281.5040809@skynet.be>
Message-ID: <A30B7B8DA843DDC80E173806@as-paul-l-453.local>

Christopher,

Personally, I find the term rather cute and archaic, like "aviator" or 
"motorist", or for that matter, "websurfer".  We are long past the day when 
as Internet users we were part of an elite or a clique (or a weirdo fringe, 
if you go back that far).

Far from being the preserve to any group, the citizenry of the Internet is 
simply everyone, just as you say.   Like it or not, there's nothing arcane 
about it, any more.

All the best,

Paul.


--On 16 January 2009 9:48:01 PM +0100 Christopher Wilkinson 
<Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be> wrote:

> Good evening:
>
> Since this beautiful subject engenders such interest, allow me to join in.
>
> The root of Internauts is the same as the root for Argonauts, Nautical
> and the Nautical Almanac. It is about Sailors, Navigantes, or if you
> prefer, Surfers.
>
> In any event, with due deference to ISOC and the IETF, it is not limited
> to them or to any other sub-set.
> The Internet is for All internauts.
>
> Regards to you all,
>
> CW
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



________________________________________________________________________
Come to APNIC 27!  Manila, 24-27 Feb 2009  http://www.apnic.net/meetings
________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                            ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 17 03:49:45 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:49:45 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1C54D5745A1043F987C80EE2F6EE378C@IAN>

Parminder, while not disagreeing with the substance of what you have
suggested below, I think the question is not so much "getting views on the
issue of extending the IGF's mandate"

 

The agenda item is "preparing the review process".

 

In the questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat, this is phrased as

 

"The Tunis Agenda calls on the UN Secretary-General "to examine the
desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in consultation with Forum
participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations
to the UN membership in the regard". This consultation will have to take
place at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. How should it be prepared?"

 

 

Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think there
will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation should be, (
and a belief that the process should determine the outcome rather that our
thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if you have information that
suggests otherwise.

 

If that is the case, we should concentrate more on what the process should
be. From our previous statement, we have

 

"As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on
consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be
both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes,
apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF
participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for
different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. 

 

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, not
due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and therefore may not have
legitimate interest in it, but because of various structural issues. In this
context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in
developing counties. 

 

Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is important to
make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development
activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower
participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability
groups should also be especially reached out to. 

 

It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but tangible
efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and constituencies should be
made. 

 

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of
review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on
transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not
advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it,
for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. In selecting
'experts' possible biases should be anticipated and accounted for. Due to
the primarily (global) public policy mandate and role of the IGF, the
selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public
policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of
IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the
global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from
the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there
should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good
way to ensure it. "

 

 

 

 

I suspect that the discussion will move towards clarifying an acceptable
process, and other comments may be left aside for later consideration. In
that case, are we happy with our comments from last September or is there
something we should add?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: 17 January 2009 17:20
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

 

Dear All

The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
considering this particular issue. 

Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
comments on the continuation of the IGF right away. 

Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;

(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened. 

(2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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. 

(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
interest. 

Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
paper on this subject.

parminder 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/a4ecf72f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 17 04:24:58 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:54:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <1C54D5745A1043F987C80EE2F6EE378C@IAN>
References: <1C54D5745A1043F987C80EE2F6EE378C@IAN>
Message-ID: <4971A3EA.1010608@itforchange.net>

>Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think 
there will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation 
should be, ( and a belief that the >process should determine the outcome 
rather that our thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if you have 
information that suggests otherwise.

Ian

The declared agenda of the consultations is to 'prepare the process', 
however it is my experience that most active players do not make such a 
fine distinction between the process and substantive view - and do start 
contributing their substantive views. In any case, that is how advocacy 
would work. Putting out our views, is not a thing to be done just at one 
point of time. It is important to claim spaces early, identify key 
possible allies, and key dangers, and then work accordingly over the 
period towards IGF 2009, and subsequently in the UN system. It was for 
this reason that we had pro-actively contributed our views about how IGF 
should continue for the synthesis paper for IGF 2008 itself.

While focusing on the main agenda of giving our views on the process, we 
should, in my view, separately, also mention our substantive views, as 
done in the earlier statement. But, yes, the 'process' discussion is 
more important at this point.

Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Parminder, while not disagreeing with the substance of what you have 
> suggested below, I think the question is not so much "getting views on 
> the issue of extending the IGF's mandate"
>
>  
>
> The agenda item is "preparing the review process".
>
>  
>
> In the questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat, this is phrased as
>
>  
>
> **"The Tunis Agenda calls on the UN Secretary-General "to examine the 
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in consultation with 
> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make 
> recommendations to the UN membership in the regard". This consultation 
> will have to take place at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. How should it 
> be prepared?"**
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think 
> there will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation 
> should be, ( and a belief that the process should determine the 
> outcome rather that our thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if 
> you have information that suggests otherwise.
>
>  
>
> If that is the case, we should concentrate more on what the process 
> should be. From our previous statement, we have
>
>  
>
> "As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on 
> consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations 
> should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear 
> formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful 
> to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested 
> stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings.
>
>  
>
> In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep 
> in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at 
> present, not due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and 
> therefore may not have legitimate interest in it, but because of 
> various structural issues. In this context, it is especially important 
> to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties.
>
>  
>
> Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is 
> important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors 
> involved in development activity, including those of civil society. 
> Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic 
> minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out 
> to.
>
>  
>
> It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but 
> tangible efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and 
> constituencies should be made.
>
>  
>
> If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process 
> of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on 
> transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It 
> is not advisable to rely on a /pro bono/ evaluation, by any agency 
> that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important 
> assessment. In selecting 'experts' possible biases should be 
> anticipated and accounted for. Due to the primarily (global) public 
> policy mandate and role of the IGF, the selected experts should have 
> adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy 
> institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may 
> be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global 
> South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from 
> the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, 
> there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships 
> are a good way to ensure it. "
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I suspect that the discussion will move towards clarifying an 
> acceptable process, and other comments may be left aside for later 
> consideration. In that case, are we happy with our comments from last 
> September or is there something we should add?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> 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:* 17 January 2009 17:20
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>
>  
>
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of 
> getting views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue 
> will be considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and 
> later UN's ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information 
> society) mandated that the decision on the issue will be taken in 
> 'consultation with IGF participants'. It is the first time that open 
> consultations will be for 2 days, and the reason for this is that 
> oneday will be exclusively devoted to considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who 
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form 
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in 
> Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes 
> all process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations 
> can have important bearing on the process that will be followed in 
> terms of what may constitute 'consultations with forum participants' 
> for deciding on continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion 
> that we should also put in our substantive comments on the 
> continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we 
> will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, 
> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this 
> reason, not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it 
> should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that 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 
> needs 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.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to 
> be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global 
> public interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the 
> synthesis paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/d86b0be6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Jan 17 05:04:04 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:04:04 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
References: <1C54D5745A1043F987C80EE2F6EE378C@IAN>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426701@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear list
 
Do not underestimate the discussion in the UNCSTD. This body got the mandate from the Tunis Summitt to coordinate the WSIS Follow up, and the IGF is part if this. The last UNCSTD adopted a quite friendly resolution which labled the IGF as an "innovative platform" (para. 18 / see also para. 27) http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_r004_en.pdf)
 
The UNCSTD sends recommendations to the ECOSOC. ECOSOC is the crucial body in the UN system which send the messages to the UNSG and the UN General Assembly. And what you need at the end of the process is a UN GA resolution in 2010. To ignore the mechanics of this process would be a strategic mistake. 
 
My understanding is that the UNCSTD has opened - for a short period (based on an ECOSOC Resolution) its meetings to WSIS accredited entities (but without voting rights). http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_r002_en.pdf
 
 
>From this constellation there are two conclusions for the CS IGC:
 
1. to prepare a clear and precise statement with reasonable receommednations for the forthcoming UNCSTD meeting (which is probably again in May 2009 in Geneva)
 
2. to identify "friendly governmental representatives" in the UNCSTD which share to a certain degree the values, principles and visions of the CS IGC (and there are a lot of these "friends of the CS" in this group). 
 
The forthcoming IGF consultations in Geneva in February 2009 could be a good opportunity to do something. One option could be that CS IGC participants invite governmental participants during one of the lunch breaks for an informal consultation. Communication is key. However, you need substance if you want to communicate. With other words you have to know what you want to achieve. And here we have still some miles to go.  
 
Regards
 
wolfgang
   

________________________________

Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Gesendet: Sa 17.01.2009 09:49
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'
Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate



Parminder, while not disagreeing with the substance of what you have suggested below, I think the question is not so much "getting views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate"

 

The agenda item is "preparing the review process".

 

In the questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat, this is phrased as

 

"The Tunis Agenda calls on the UN Secretary-General "to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN membership in the regard". This consultation will have to take place at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. How should it be prepared?"

 

 

Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think there will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation should be, ( and a belief that the process should determine the outcome rather that our thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if you have information that suggests otherwise.

 

If that is the case, we should concentrate more on what the process should be. From our previous statement, we have

 

"As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. 

 

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, not due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and therefore may not have legitimate interest in it, but because of various structural issues. In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties. 

 

Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. 

 

It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but tangible efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and constituencies should be made. 

 

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. In selecting 'experts' possible biases should be anticipated and accounted for. Due to the primarily (global) public policy mandate and role of the IGF, the selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. "

 

 

 

 

I suspect that the discussion will move towards clarifying an acceptable process, and other comments may be left aside for later consideration. In that case, are we happy with our comments from last September or is there something we should add?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: 17 January 2009 17:20
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

 

Dear All

The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2 days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to considering this particular issue. 

Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive comments on the continuation of the IGF right away. 

Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;

(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened. 

(2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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. 

(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. 

Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis paper on this subject.

parminder 




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Sat Jan 17 06:47:49 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:47:49 -0200
Subject: [governance] Internautas
In-Reply-To: <A30B7B8DA843DDC80E173806@as-paul-l-453.local>
References: <9F97EBB9-B783-41EA-AE78-14CCBD8FABF6@syr.edu> <496F544D.2090407@rits.org.br> <496F5B47.603@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901151812.AA12220020@rits.org.br> <496FAA03.70009@wzb.eu> <WorldClient-F200901152108.AA08430000@rits.org.br> <004501c9777d$f6322ab0$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <24F4962E492F4048B88970B01816F888@GINGERLAPTOP> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB2363D99F357@EDAMAME.arin.net> <39EDCEB2F52A458CB48B3AC3676E6ED4@GINGERLAPTOP> <00ed01c977ff$c271bf10$0500a8c0@VandaVaio> <4970F281.5040809@skynet.be> <A30B7B8DA843DDC80E173806@as-paul-l-453.local>
Message-ID: <4971C565.6010307@rits.org.br>

Yes, especially now that we have well over one billion e-navigators...
But the need to create different denominations for the human being
depending on the issue and on what s/he does or is doing will continue.
One may be a pedestrian, a driver, an internaut, a shopper, a nerd, a...

So I am fine with being called internaut.

:)

--c.a.

Paul Wilson wrote:
> Christopher,
> 
> Personally, I find the term rather cute and archaic, like "aviator" or
> "motorist", or for that matter, "websurfer".  We are long past the day
> when as Internet users we were part of an elite or a clique (or a weirdo
> fringe, if you go back that far).
> 
> Far from being the preserve to any group, the citizenry of the Internet
> is simply everyone, just as you say.   Like it or not, there's nothing
> arcane about it, any more.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> --On 16 January 2009 9:48:01 PM +0100 Christopher Wilkinson
> <Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be> wrote:
> 
>> Good evening:
>>
>> Since this beautiful subject engenders such interest, allow me to join
>> in.
>>
>> The root of Internauts is the same as the root for Argonauts, Nautical
>> and the Nautical Almanac. It is about Sailors, Navigantes, or if you
>> prefer, Surfers.
>>
>> In any event, with due deference to ISOC and the IETF, it is not limited
>> to them or to any other sub-set.
>> The Internet is for All internauts.
>>
>> Regards to you all,
>>
>> CW
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Come to APNIC 27!  Manila, 24-27 Feb 2009  http://www.apnic.net/meetings
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                            ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Jan 17 07:03:54 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:03:54 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426702@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;

My comments are inside

Parminder:
(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened. 

Wolfgang:
In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages, but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
 
Parminder:
(2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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. 

Wolfgang:
This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea, in particular if it comes to capacity building. 
 
Parminder:
(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. 

Wolfgang:
It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete. 
 
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 presidencia at internauta.org.ar  Sat Jan 17 11:27:35 2009
From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:27:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re:  Asociacion Internauta
Message-ID: <8EEF92B14FE0491C9F30E315AC654CEC@CASA2>

Por favor agradeceré si alguien puede traducir esto para todos.


Estimados:

La palabra Internauta, significa "navegante de Internet: Inter =Internet- Nauta = 
navegante, mas allá de eso, solo en Latinoamérica hay cerca de "10  organizaciones 
Internauta"  (Internauta Argentina -La primera-, internauta Brasil, Internauta Chile, 
Internauta Colombia (ACUI), Internauta Perú (APUI), Internauta Paraguay (en formación), 
Internauta Uruguay (en formación), Internauta Venezuela, Internauta Chile, Internauta 
Cuba, Internauta Bolivia (en formación)).

Todas ellas son organizaciones de usuarios de Internet, que nuclean usuarios finales de 
Internet, por lo tanto son llamadas organizaciones de la sociedad civil.

Todas ellas son  reconocidas por sus respectivos Estados (tienen personería jurídica y 
pagan sus impuestos), e interactúan con los mismos en la defensa de los derechos de 
consumidor y en el acortamiento de la brecha digital.

La mayoría Interviene el políticas publicas de sus respectivos países con respecto a 
politicas de TIC's y comunicaciones, entre otras cosas.

Tienen un gran caudal de personas voluntarias (usuarios de Internet) trabajando dentro de 
ellas y promueven la participación democrática y plural de sus integrantes.

Han conformado hace muy poco la Federación de Usuarios de Internet de Latinoamérica y se 
esta en vías para este año de promover la federación de usuarios de Internet de 
Hispanoamérica, donde se suman las organizaciones de España y Portugal)

Espero que esta información haya sido de utilidad.



Saludos Cordiales

Sergio Salinas Porto

Presidente

Internauta Argentina

Usuarios de Internet



> ---- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internautas
>
>
>> Christopher,
>>
>> Personally, I find the term rather cute and archaic, like "aviator" or "motorist", or 
>> for that matter, "websurfer".  We are long past the day when as Internet users we were 
>> part of an elite or a clique (or a weirdo fringe, if you go back that far).
>>
>> Far from being the preserve to any group, the citizenry of the Internet is simply 
>> everyone, just as you say.   Like it or not, there's nothing arcane about it, any more.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>> --On 16 January 2009 9:48:01 PM +0100 Christopher Wilkinson 
>> <Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be> wrote:
>>
>>> Good evening:
>>>
>>> Since this beautiful subject engenders such interest, allow me to join in.
>>>
>>> The root of Internauts is the same as the root for Argonauts, Nautical
>>> and the Nautical Almanac. It is about Sailors, Navigantes, or if you
>>> prefer, Surfers.
>>>
>>> In any event, with due deference to ISOC and the IETF, it is not limited
>>> to them or to any other sub-set.
>>> The Internet is for All internauts.
>>>
>>> Regards to you all,
>>>
>>> CW
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Come to APNIC 27!  Manila, 24-27 Feb 2009  http://www.apnic.net/meetings
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
>> http://www.apnic.net                            ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Jan 17 10:41:11 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:41:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk>

In message <49717897.4060801 at itforchange.net>, at 11:50:07 on Sat, 17 
Jan 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who 
>gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form 
>comprises of IGF participants.

Plus there are many who contribute to the process (either the main IGF 
or the consultations) without ever attending a physical meeting. Isn't 
that what we should be encouraging, 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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 17 11:24:20 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:54:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net> <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net>



Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <49717897.4060801 at itforchange.net>, at 11:50:07 on Sat, 17 
> Jan 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those 
>> who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some 
>> form comprises of IGF participants.
>
> Plus there are many who contribute to the process (either the main IGF 
> or the consultations) without ever attending a physical meeting. Isn't 
> that what we should be encouraging, anyway?

Ronald

The above was not about what we should promote under the notion of 'IGF 
participants'. It is an attempt to build an understanding of what those 
in charge of driving the process of consultations over the issue of 
extending the mandate of the IGF are likely to consider as 'IGF 
participants',  in fulfillment of the relevant requirement laid by the 
World Summit on the Information Society documents. Parminder

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 11:41:11 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:41:11 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901170841y4f8d7baej69582c6b9e360884@mail.gmail.com>

>From what I see here, the IGF is trying to get inputs from its
participants and as you see from the state of affairs from around the
world with governments changing all over the world from the US to
Thailand including us in South Asia, the process is in partial
collapse mode and the only substantial amount of input for the
continuation of the possibilities of the process will come from a
limited number of parties.

My country has been out of this process since the Earth Quake struck
us in Pakistan in 2005 and our delegation was unable to make it to the
WSIS in Tunisia and only us as a small CS group participated while
then Pakistan's Permanent Mission to the UN involving Ambassador Masud
Khan (I hope I am getting the name right) was Chairing the process.
After that, silence from our part of the world and even though I am
part of the working groups and catalyst on the Internet Governance
group for the Ministry of IT&Ts working groups on the redrafting
activity of the National IT Policy, not much has happened and as a CS
rep from Pakistan on IG I am free to state that the country has no
current stance on its position and recommendation to the process.

One thing has to be realized, this process is running in a superficial
and super imposed mode without having most of the key reps from the CS
groups that advocate and educate IG in their countries and face the
consequences of wrong policy making. Wearing different hats has never
been an answer and won't be. You will have to get in the real people.

As far as my personal opinion goes, I have diversified opinion on the
state of continuation of the IGF process. First the global financial
melt down has blocked great amounts of funding to the UN system and
the IGF is currently managed within that system. Unless some developed
country stands up and takes the initiative to house the IGF
secretariat and fund the process as an institutionalized system, its
not going to happen.

The second opinion is, that the UN will support this process
irrespective of inputs, there hasn't been record of any process on
similar lines (I mean sustainable development and not the internet in
particular) to have been dropped despite global recessions in the
past. My point of view on this informed and critical. I see the IGF
secretariat to receive funding and getting established.

I also see the IGF process to become more stronger and sustainable
addressing issues that the UNGAID process is failing to do so. I see
the IGF process to become more CS intensive as the hat changers start
falling out of line due to lack of funds and the longterm affects of
the global recession as program funding extensions from Multilateral
and Bilateral agencies continued to be reduced and in some cases,
completely diminished.

I might be in a position to say that I see the IGF process to be
continuing even if the IGF does not receive the possible support it
seeks to sustain itself in terms of institutionalization as well as
sustainable presence. If the UN system fails to support the process,
one of the developed nations will step in to continue their dominance
over the global Internet system and will continue a diplomatic
dialogue that doesn't affect their dominance but continues to control
other countries so that they may not dominate over its control as in
the case of the US Internet related interventions and China's
alternate Internet strategy. The world is evolving its own strategies
now and traditional diplomacy shall continue to evolve into new forms.

In my country, we are running independent of the IGF process. Our
survival is irrespective of the IGF because the local cyber law bills
have been passed openly in the country due to need and not following a
process like IGF due to the nature of issues at the national level.
The IGF holds no value for us anymore. It may be becoming the same for
other regions. We have to realize this, the grip on issues is just
deliberation and diplomatic interventions, the IGF is weak and more of
a discussion forum for possibility exploration. Doesn't work for most
of us from the developing world.

So friends realize our position within the IGF. Truth is hard to
accept always. Without us developing world people and issues, no one
would be debating these anyways and we aren't in it or
there.............. most of our earlier MAG contributors have failed
to produce anything constructive and useful............we know that.
Tourism and National Demands in light of the social economic
conditions cannot be fulfilled by corporate CS reps. I am making
recommendations on IG to my country, have you ever seen me in your IGF
meetings? Has the IGF process or associated entities ever supported us
to participate, I hope you have the answer. Think realistically.


-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa


On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
> that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
> days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
> considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
> are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
> bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
> 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
> IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
> comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
> global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
> should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
> paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Jan 17 11:53:38 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:53:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
 <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk> <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <p06240814c597bc1ab464@[192.168.1.153]>

>Roland Perry wrote:
>>In message <49717897.4060801 at itforchange.net>, at 11:50:07 on Sat, 
>>17 Jan 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>>>Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those 
>>>who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in 
>>>some form comprises of IGF participants.
>>
>>Plus there are many who contribute to the process (either the main 
>>IGF or the consultations) without ever attending a physical 
>>meeting. Isn't that what we should be encouraging, anyway?
>
>Ronald
>
>The above was not about what we should promote under the notion of 
>'IGF participants'. It is an attempt to build an understanding of 
>what those in charge of driving the process of consultations over 
>the issue of extending the mandate of the IGF are likely to consider 
>as 'IGF participants',  in fulfillment of the relevant requirement 
>laid by the World Summit on the Information Society documents. 
>Parminder


It's worth reading Markus Kummer's comment about the review in the 
transcript of the Taking Stock and the Way Forward

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/TSAWF.html>

Note the second to last paragraph (emphasis added). We can't spend 
the year debating the meaning of words.

There will be consultations throughout the year as always, and you 
can be sure there will be another synthesis paper to contribute to 
and opportunities for remote comments during the forum, but the 
mandate has been interpreted!

Adam



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes.  Thank you, Nitin.

The mandate is, shall we say, relatively clear.  It has to be -- it 
has to take place within five years of its creation.  And this 
generally assumed that the creation dates back to Tunis 2005.  So the 
Secretary-General will have to make a recommendation to member 
states, as it is stated in the Tunis agenda, and make recommendations 
so that a decision can be taken within these five years.

This brings us to the General Assembly of 2009 -- 2010.  Sorry.  That 
is two years from now.

And in order to get there, we will have to get started soon.  In 
order for the General Assembly to take a decision, the report from 
the Secretary-General needs to be ready in early 2010.  It will then 
go to the CSTD in May 2010, from there to ECOSOC in July 2010, and 
from ECOSOC to the General Assembly, which then has the last word on 
whether or not to continue the forum in December 2010.

In other words, we will have to get started early next year, and we 
will prepare that with a day set aside at the meetings in February. 
We have the dates already for the open consultations.  That is 23rd 
and 24th of February.  And one day of these two days will be set 
aside for the discussion on how to prepare this review process.

And, of course, we invite all stakeholders to post their ideas and 
comments.  And we'll post it on our Web site.  And we will, as usual, 
prepare a paper as an input into the discussions.

The process will then be conducted on the basis of these discussions 
in February and brought to fruition at the meeting in Egypt sometime 
in late fall.  And I am given to understand that our Egyptian hosts 
may be able to announce us the dates later today.

But it is also, I think, understood and also not the desire of our 
Egyptian hosts to turn the meeting in Egypt into an inward-looking 
meeting where we discuss the future of the IGF.  This will be one 
item on the agenda of the meeting, like we have today, the taking 
stock and the way forward.  We would then discuss the review.

**But the actual review will have to take place at the meeting 
itself.  The mandate says the Secretary-General will have to consult 
-- informal consultations with forum participants.  And that can only 
be the annual meeting of the IGF.**

So we will have to come to consensus in this area.  We do say the IGF 
is not a decision-making body.  But we will have to find some way of 
reaching a consensus on what will then go into the report of the 
Secretary-General.  But the final decision will be with the member 
states in the various instances, CSTD, ECOSOC, and, finally, General 
Assembly.

END



>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Jan 17 11:56:22 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:56:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net> <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk>
 <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <9QCymj622gcJFAIO@perry.co.uk>

In message <49720634.9070101 at itforchange.net>, at 21:54:20 on Sat, 17 
Jan 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>>> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those 
>>>who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some 
>>>form comprises of IGF participants.
>>
>> Plus there are many who contribute to the process (either the main 
>>IGF  or the consultations) without ever attending a physical meeting. 
>>Isn't  that what we should be encouraging, anyway?
>
>The above was not about what we should promote under the notion of 'IGF 
>participants'. It is an attempt to build an understanding of what those 
>in charge of driving the process of consultations over the issue of 
>extending the mandate of the IGF are likely to consider as 'IGF 
>participants',  in fulfillment of the relevant requirement laid by the 
>World Summit on the Information Society documents.

Who do you think the UN regards as participants, and who would you like 
them to regard as participants?
-- 
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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 12:02:02 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:02:02 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <9QCymj622gcJFAIO@perry.co.uk>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net> <V8K4tZ0XwfcJFA$v@perry.co.uk>
	 <49720634.9070101@itforchange.net> <9QCymj622gcJFAIO@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901170902s64f49fe5ua8741d915bfe1de5@mail.gmail.com>

It would be good to scrutinize who really have been productively
participating in the first place without medals on their resumes
working for the greater good and their countries' interests for
internet control and net neutrality coupled with openness and
inclusiveness?

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <49720634.9070101 at itforchange.net>, at 21:54:20 on Sat, 17 Jan
> 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>>>>
>>>> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
>>>> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
>>>> comprises of IGF participants.
>>>
>>> Plus there are many who contribute to the process (either the main IGF
>>>  or the consultations) without ever attending a physical meeting. Isn't
>>>  that what we should be encouraging, anyway?
>>
>> The above was not about what we should promote under the notion of 'IGF
>> participants'. It is an attempt to build an understanding of what those in
>> charge of driving the process of consultations over the issue of extending
>> the mandate of the IGF are likely to consider as 'IGF participants',  in
>> fulfillment of the relevant requirement laid by the World Summit on the
>> Information Society documents.
>
> Who do you think the UN regards as participants, and who would you like them
> to regard as participants?
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 12:34:19 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:34:19 +0500
Subject: [governance] OECD Information Technology Outlook 2008
Message-ID: <701af9f70901170934s2c7f29cbx64d1dbd48f6e7aa1@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarded by Fouad Bajwa for information and discussion at IGC CS List
and IGCBP Alumni List only without having any formal/informal
association with the OECD.

OECD Information Technology Outlook 2008

http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5KZFV5NVGLF2

Information technology (IT) and broadband are major drivers of
economic change, restructuring businesses, affecting skills and
employment, and contributing to growth and consumer benefits. This
volume describes recent market dynamics and trends in industries
supplying IT goods and services and offers an overview of the
globalisation of the information and communication technology (ICT)
sector and the rise of ICT-enabled international sourcing.

It analyses the development and impact of the changing global
distribution of services activities and the rise of China and India as
significant suppliers of ICT-related goods and services. It also looks
at the increasing importance of digital content in selected industries
and how it is transforming value chains and business models. The
potential of technological developments such as ubiquitous networks,
location-based services, natural disaster warning systems, the
participative web and the convergence of information technology with
nanotechnology and biotechnology is also examined. This book includes
StatLinks, URL's linking statistical graphs and tables to spreadsheets
containing the underlying data.

PDF: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/get-it.asp?REF=9308041E.PDF&TYPE=browse

-- 

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  Sat Jan 17 17:00:58 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:00:58 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426702@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>

It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
altogether.

I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.

However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
of possibilities here we should explore.

Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
"enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully .... 

I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
operate

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> 
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
> 
> My comments are inside
> 
> Parminder:
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
> suitably strengthened.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
> 
> Parminder:
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
> 
> Parminder:
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 18:04:05 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 04:04:05 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426702@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901171504g32f3b5c9p7848a9c2210655a9@mail.gmail.com>

From what I have shared is as we saw in the UNGAID, Intel and other
giants holding more power in the process than the common man or the
''real CS representatives' holding more decision and action power in
the process.

Why does an IGF process have to be managed by people from within the
bureaucracy of the UN system than the equal holding of positions by
the Civil Society that can actually make action oriented decisions.

Has anyone seen anything being agreed upon between OECD, ICANN, WTO
etc on any issues that significantly affect the internet in terms of
positive Civil Society and people's oriented change? I doubt it. It
has to be realized that IGF has to have a role other than what it has
now. It has to be more inclusive and it has to give us members of the
IGC CS group to be there within its key activities instead of us
sitting here and just bringing local change and that has no
deliberations on IGF's part.............not useful at all indeed.

Like you say Ian, its time for a revised strategy from us as well to
what and how does the CS caucus actually be a fulltime inclusive part
of the process? What is the mechanism and as you share, who takes it?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
> altogether.
>
> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
>
> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
> of possibilities here we should explore.
>
> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully ....
>
> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
> operate
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>>
>> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>>
>> My comments are inside
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
>> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
>> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
>> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
>> suitably strengthened.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
>> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
>> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
>> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
>> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
>> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
>> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
>> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
>> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
>> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
>> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
>> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
>> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
>> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
>> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
>> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
>> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
>> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
>> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
>> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
>> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
>> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
>> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
>> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
>> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
>> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
>> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
>> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
>> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
>> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
>> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
>> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
>> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
>> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
>> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
>> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>> interest.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
>> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
>> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
>> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
>> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
>> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
>> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
>> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
>> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
>> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 17 21:29:25 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:59:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
Message-ID: <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>

 >It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus 
acceptance here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as 
it will be opposed by so
 > many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that altogether.

"Decision making IGF' ???. Whoever asked for it? In fact I have been on 
this list for a few years and I have never heard one person in any 
seriousness asking for a decision making IGF. Jeremy's views are 
relatively most developed in this area, an he doesn't ask for a decision 
making IGF. An IGP paper did flirt with the possibility of IGF in some 
way taking up soft oversight of the ICANN to help it to transit away 
from US control, but a lot of detail was offered that it does *not* 
involve any hard decision making.

And since the above is said in relation to present proposals for an IGC 
statement, I wonder why a simple statement seeking 'strengthening of the 
IGF' which I am sure has been reflected in earlier IGC statements should 
deteriorate unilaterally, over two emails,  into being interpreted as a 
call for a 'decision making IGF' which should now be dropped since it is 
unlikely to get the group's consensus.

Extreme and facile labeling of positions does not help the discussions. 
I can very well say calling IGF as a 'Davos of the Internet' serves the 
purpose of legitimizing control of global Internet policies related 
decision making by big industry.

To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be so 
insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global 
civil society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising)  powerful 
economic players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the 
needed political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global 
public policy processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on 
Internet governance. The situation is bad enough without our help.

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
> altogether.
>
> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
>
> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
> of possibilities here we should explore.
>
> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully .... 
>
> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
> operate
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>  
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>>
>> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>>
>> My comments are inside
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
>> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
>> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
>> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
>> suitably strengthened.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
>> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
>> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
>> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
>> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
>> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
>> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
>> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
>> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
>> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
>> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
>> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
>> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
>> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
>> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
>> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
>> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
>> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
>> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
>> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
>> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
>> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
>> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
>> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
>> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
>> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
>> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
>> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
>> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
>> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
>> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
>> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
>> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
>> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
>> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
>> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>> interest.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
>> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
>> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
>> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
>> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
>> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
>> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
>> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
>> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
>> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090118/b59bee11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 03:44:16 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:44:16 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
	 <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901180044x5b8a705cna2084082fa2e059a@mail.gmail.com>

I think the point about decision and action has been taken in the
literal sense and has been associated to a policy part. What I am
sharing is that one example from one developing country serves as an
example for another developing world country. I am not an advocate on
developed countries and my focus has always been with the developing
world.

Davos is one thing............. my perspective is clear, our struggle
for awareness of IG and inclusion of it in the local policy scene can
serve as an example for others and should be taken in to stock as an
example for other countries struggling for the same.

When I say UNGAID, I say a multistakholder partnership that gives more
power to the money pockets instead of the ones that disrupt the power
process for the people. When decision making goes only in to private
sector hands, the multistakeholder partnership diminishes and private
control takes over and you will soon continue to see that despite
whatever at large activities and CS inclusion the ICANN has been
making, some how things get twisted and no decision has evidence to be
supported with and so is never taken thus action never occurs.

I hope the CS members have a clear idea of what they want from the IGF
process because it will continue to be a diplomatic give and take
scenario whether there is maximum CS participation and representation
or not. I believe my role to be strong because I have support now,
thats the key effect to get any decision oriented action into place.

Technology and the Internet itself came from the US and thats the
issue that gets things tangled that over the past 4.5 decades,
Internet is also being powered from the developing world. The examples
of powering the Internet are there and Google will soon be launching
low-cost Internet accross the world. If the adoption goes well, Google
might become a leading global provider of Internet service to the
developing world gaining both a customer base in numerous markets of
mass and scale. Then if it would want to filter the Internet on any
specific country (in this case the dominating one) it will and the IGF
will not be in a position do anything because the control was
dynamically shifted to the private sector through market processes and
not the IGF itself.

One has to realize, whose turf are we defending. I am doing so for my
country and the Civil Society where my humane ability to take everyone
with me irrespective of any association or classification enables me
to take corresponding lobbying and direct activities towards decision
making activity.

Its always a matter of realizing that why do you want IGF, do you just
want to sit in meetings or discuss or would one like to participate in
action that brings about change. If the developed world doesn't want
to support that change, they don't have to, slowly and gradually the
developing world will evolve its powering the internet capacity and
capability and I see the IGF to be a strong discussion forum on that
where developing countries will create their multistakeholder
partnerships to seek solutions to their problems.

ICANN is there, there needs to be more input and intervention by IGF
into the ICANN where developing world countries will work together to
represent their interests and seek joint resolutions to gain what they
want from the governance ecology.

I am clear on when I say that action has to be there as it has been 6
years since this process evolved into where it is today, I don't see
why many more years are required to start that particular activity.
The IGF needs a solution to why it was established and why should it
be solidified. Why not all of us just participating in the ICANN?
Because the IGF brings in a multistakeholder dialogue doesn't mean its
role will never transform from just mere discussions to taking global
decisions in the form of resolutions where member states will strive
to achieve those collective decisions through local actions.

See how the Geneva Convention continues to be violated? The same will
be for any convention or decision making under the IGF but it will be
documented and progress against it will be monitored by the
signatories.

Change is evident, you will also see it in the next 12 months
irrespective of Davos or not!

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
>> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
>> opposed by so
>> many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that altogether.
>
> "Decision making IGF' ???. Whoever asked for it? In fact I have been on this
> list for a few years and I have never heard one person in any seriousness
> asking for a decision making IGF. Jeremy's views are relatively most
> developed in this area, an he doesn't ask for a decision making IGF. An IGP
> paper did flirt with the possibility of IGF in some way taking up soft
> oversight of the ICANN to help it to transit away from US control, but a lot
> of detail was offered that it does *not* involve any hard decision making.
>
> And since the above is said in relation to present proposals for an IGC
> statement, I wonder why a simple statement seeking 'strengthening of the
> IGF' which I am sure has been reflected in earlier IGC statements should
> deteriorate unilaterally, over two emails,  into being interpreted as a call
> for a 'decision making IGF' which should now be dropped since it is unlikely
> to get the group's consensus.
>
> Extreme and facile labeling of positions does not help the discussions. I
> can very well say calling IGF as a 'Davos of the Internet' serves the
> purpose of legitimizing control of global Internet policies related decision
> making by big industry.
>
> To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be so
> insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global civil
> society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising)  powerful economic
> players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the needed
> political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global public policy
> processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on Internet governance.
> The situation is bad enough without our help.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
> altogether.
>
> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
>
> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
> of possibilities here we should explore.
>
> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully ....
>
> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
> operate
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> My comments are inside
>
> Parminder:
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
> suitably strengthened.
>
> Wolfgang:
> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>
> Parminder:
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>
> Wolfgang:
> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>
> Parminder:
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Wolfgang:
> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

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  Sun Jan 18 15:19:02 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:19:02 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <95EEFBD01854460EAA80299543A74198@IAN>

Parminder, if you look again I was only agreeing with Wolfgang that a
decision making IGF was a non starter. Since we all seem to agree on this,
perhaps we can move on and further define what strengthening IGF might mean.
I added a few thoughts below – any further suggestions or comments?

 

I take your point on Davos and won’t use that again. What I was trying to
convey, and I think Wolfgang as well, was the precedent within the UN system
for a meeting of stakeholders and experts to discuss openly and learn from
each other without being bound by decision making. 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 18 January 2009 13:29
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Wolfgang"'"
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

 

>It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
opposed by so 
> many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that altogether.

"Decision making IGF' ???. Whoever asked for it? In fact I have been on this
list for a few years and I have never heard one person in any seriousness
asking for a decision making IGF. Jeremy's views are relatively most
developed in this area, an he doesn't ask for a decision making IGF. An IGP
paper did flirt with the possibility of IGF in some way taking up soft
oversight of the ICANN to help it to transit away from US control, but a lot
of detail was offered that it does *not* involve any hard decision making.

And since the above is said in relation to present proposals for an IGC
statement, I wonder why a simple statement seeking 'strengthening of the
IGF' which I am sure has been reflected in earlier IGC statements should
deteriorate unilaterally, over two emails,  into being interpreted as a call
for a 'decision making IGF' which should now be dropped since it is unlikely
to get the group's consensus.

Extreme and facile labeling of positions does not help the discussions. I
can very well say calling IGF as a 'Davos of the Internet' serves the
purpose of legitimizing control of global Internet policies related decision
making by big industry.

To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be so
insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global civil
society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising)  powerful economic
players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the needed
political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global public policy
processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on Internet governance.
The situation is bad enough without our help. 

Parminder 


Ian Peter wrote: 

It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
altogether.
 
I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
 
However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
of possibilities here we should explore.
 
Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
"enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully .... 
 
I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
operate
 
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
 
Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
 
My comments are inside
 
Parminder:
(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
suitably strengthened.
 
Wolfgang:
In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
"pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
 
Parminder:
(2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
 
Wolfgang:
This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
in particular if it comes to capacity building.
 
Parminder:
(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
interest.
 
Wolfgang:
It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
 
Wolfgang
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
    

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
 
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/9ad8d82f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Jan 18 16:16:25 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:16:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN> <49729405.90100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <49739C29.6020705@wzb.eu>



Parminder wrote:


> To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be so 
> insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global 
> civil society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising)  powerful 
> economic players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the 
> needed political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global 
> public policy processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on 
> Internet governance. The situation is bad enough without our help.

For once I agree with Parminder. Any Davos related metaphors sound like 
bad taste to me.

My, perhaps optimistic, impression after the last IGF is that we don't 
need formal changes of the IGF's charter to further develop its 
structure and mission. The IGF evolves thanks to its participants. As 
somebody pointed out after the last meeting, some groups involved in the 
IGF are getting ready to work on messages or recommendations or 
"decisions at the IGF" for their specific areas. Such outcomes would be 
really good as long as people don't get too ambitious and try to speak 
for the entire IGF. The most important developments are occurring 
bottom-up (or not at all) in specific areas. It doesn't need grand 
decisions reflected in charters. The current mission is open to 
(re-)interpretations and flexible enough to allow for a lot of change.

Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate 
extended so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct 
connection to New York has been a successful arrangement that provides 
flexibility. I think it is important that no other UN organization gets 
involved in the IGF's management.

jeanette
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
>> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
>> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
>> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
>> altogether.
>>
>> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
>>
>> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
>> of possibilities here we should explore.
>>
>> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
>> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
>> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
>> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
>> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
>> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
>> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully .... 
>>
>> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
>> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
>> operate
>>
>> Ian Peter
>> PO Box 429
>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>> Australia
>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>> www.ianpeter.com
>>  
>>  
>>
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>>> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>>>
>>> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>>>
>>> My comments are inside
>>>
>>> Parminder:
>>> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
>>> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
>>> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
>>> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
>>> suitably strengthened.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang:
>>> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
>>> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
>>> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
>>> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
>>> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
>>> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
>>> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
>>> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
>>> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
>>> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
>>> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
>>> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
>>> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
>>> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
>>> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
>>> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
>>> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
>>> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
>>> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
>>> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
>>> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
>>> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
>>> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
>>> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
>>> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
>>> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
>>> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
>>> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
>>> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
>>> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
>>> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
>>> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
>>> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>>>
>>> Parminder:
>>> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang:
>>> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
>>> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
>>> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>>>
>>> Parminder:
>>> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
>>> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang:
>>> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
>>> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
>>> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
>>> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
>>> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
>>> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
>>> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
>>> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
>>> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
>>> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>     
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon Jan 19 07:10:42 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:10:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AE14C4F9B01C4F5482EC378D77BDB399@PCbureau>

Dear Parminder and all

I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and (3) : IG and Developinng Countries. 

So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main themes related to this issue : 
(1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions on IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
(2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and IXP, in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services for these countries.

Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the financing of both these themes.

All the best
Jean-Louis Fullsack   

---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Parminder 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
  Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate


  Dear All

  The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2 days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to considering this particular issue. 

  Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive comments on the continuation of the IGF right away. 

  Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;

  (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened. 

  (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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. 

  (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. 

  Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis paper on this subject.

  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/9a1fc762/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 19 07:34:35 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:34:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <AE14C4F9B01C4F5482EC378D77BDB399@PCbureau>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
	 <AE14C4F9B01C4F5482EC378D77BDB399@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0901190434n1ca19630ydd977886f07cc13@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

 I take deeply Jean Fullsack view concerning DCs approach. Issues proposed
are objectives. So, it will be correct to open consultation among various
stakholders who are involved in IGF process and those are involved in ICT
proram in local, subregional and regional level.
The second issue is technical meeting.
Baudouin

2009/1/19 jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr>

>  Dear Parminder and all
>
> I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and (3)
> : IG and Developinng Countries.
>
> So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from
> industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its
> right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main
> themes related to this issue :
> (1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a
> minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions on
> IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
> (2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet
> resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and IXP,
> in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services for
> these countries.
>
> Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the
> financing of both these themes.
>
> All the best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> ---- Original Message -----
>
>  *From:* Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>   *Sent:* Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
> *Subject:* [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
> that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
> days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
> considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
> are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
> bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
> 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
> IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
> comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
> global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
> should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
> paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
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 <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/5e8afcbf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Jan 19 07:44:03 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:44:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
Message-ID: <501E93A94DDD4BF19EEE1556C4B0053C@PCbureau>

Wolfgang wrote :

"2. to identify "friendly governmental representatives" in the UNCSTD which share to a certain degree the values, principles and visions of the CS IGC (and there are a lot of these "friends of the CS" in this group). "

I'd suggest the European CS to reopen the the European IGF (EIGF) issue as quickly as possible. The two days' EuroDIG debates have shown there are some convergences between both the CoE and the European Union with our main viewpoints in terms of IG. If we had an actual European IGF set up in the coming months, a clear position could be achieved with the European member countries just before the UNCSTD meeting in May. 
As for me, I asked Catherine Trautmann (MEP, vice-chair of the parliamentary Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and rapporteur of the WSIS and IGF to the EP) for urging the EIGF creation following the decision of the European Parliament and the agreement of the European Commission in January 2008.

That doesn't prevent us from lobbying our own government... or our colleagues to act similarly with their (already) existing national and regional IGFs.

Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/e0fb7b95/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 08:01:21 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:01:21 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <501E93A94DDD4BF19EEE1556C4B0053C@PCbureau>
References: <501E93A94DDD4BF19EEE1556C4B0053C@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901190501t202288fdw16b7668b37d9b8fa@mail.gmail.com>

This is what I actually stressed upon, regions taking ownership and
bringing their interventions as an example for dialogue and possible
action lines.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Wolfgang wrote :
>
> "2. to identify "friendly governmental representatives" in the UNCSTD which
> share to a certain degree the values, principles and visions of the CS IGC
> (and there are a lot of these "friends of the CS" in this group). "
>
> I'd suggest the European CS to reopen the the European IGF (EIGF) issue as
> quickly as possible. The two days' EuroDIG debates have shown there are some
> convergences between both the CoE and the European Union with our main
> viewpoints in terms of IG. If we had an actual European IGF set up in the
> coming months, a clear position could be achieved with the European member
> countries just before the UNCSTD meeting in May.
> As for me, I asked Catherine Trautmann (MEP, vice-chair of the parliamentary
> Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and rapporteur of the WSIS and
> IGF to the EP) for urging the EIGF creation following the decision of the
> European Parliament and the agreement of the European Commission in January
> 2008.
>
> That doesn't prevent us from lobbying our own government... or our
> colleagues to act similarly with their (already) existing national and
> regional IGFs.
>
> Best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon Jan 19 07:51:25 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:51:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN>
Message-ID: <8C9E9678B8304C2BAA94E64E5AA44F90@PCbureau>

Why a reference to "Davos" and not to "porto Alegre" ?
Aren't we CS and not business gurus ?

Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; "'Parminder'" 
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate



It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
altogether.

I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.

However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
of possibilities here we should explore.

Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
"enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully ....

I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
operate

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> My comments are inside
>
> Parminder:
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
> suitably strengthened.
>
> Wolfgang:
> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>
> Parminder:
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>
> Wolfgang:
> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>
> Parminder:
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Wolfgang:
> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 08:04:54 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:04:54 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <AE14C4F9B01C4F5482EC378D77BDB399@PCbureau>
References: <49717897.4060801@itforchange.net>
	 <AE14C4F9B01C4F5482EC378D77BDB399@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901190504q77a11433g9dc999a4f20a3a6d@mail.gmail.com>

This also sets in the space to be utilized by the Developing Countries
instead of a single side intervention by the Developed. I also agree
that a more powerful representation participates at IGF but again the
minority with the right mix of people from all three multistakeholder
partners creates the right power to represent a country. Regional
level IG groups should also be identified so that country level
participation can be a real reality.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all
>
> I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and (3)
> : IG and Developinng Countries.
>
> So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from
> industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its
> right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main
> themes related to this issue :
> (1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a
> minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions on
> IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
> (2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet
> resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and IXP,
> in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services for
> these countries.
>
> Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the
> financing of both these themes.
>
> All the best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> ---- Original Message -----
>
> From: Parminder
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
> Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
> that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
> days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
> considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
> are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
> bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
> 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
> IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
> comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
> global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
> should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
> paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 08:05:02 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:05:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: [AFCN Members] House Draft of Economic Stimulus
 Bill: BroadbandProvisions
Message-ID: <10DE161341344790BC26DDB48F0B00E7@userPC>

Some of you may be interested in the attached... It indicates that the
intention of the Democrats in Congress as well as Pres. Obama is to place
ICTs more or less at the centre of their New Deal attempts to revive the US
economy beyond making the world safe for banker's five course lunches and
zillion dollar bonuses, that is by putting spending power into the hands of
those who will spend it and putting a lot of very socially
desirable/productive things in place in the process.
 
The ideologically to the right of George W. current Canadian government, is
in the process of pinching its nose tight shut and doing more or less the
same thing and my guess is that the folks in Europe are moving more or less
along the same path.
 
What fair-minded argument and rational analysis couldn't achieve an economic
firestorm is making not only possible but inevitable at an accelerating
rate.
 
What all this means is that in the developed countries at least "access" as
an (infrastructue) issue is very very much on the table and there is in the
broader program from Congress even an apparent recognition that access is
not simply a good in itself but as linked to education, health care,
training etc. is a central aspect of creating an inclusive (and
aspirationally equitable) modern society.
 
How this impacts on the Internet Governance discussion and the IGF remains,
to be seen, but it does mean I think, an increased emphasis in IG and other
ICT related issues on how to effectively use ICTs for economic and social
development (and relatedly how IG either enhances or retards that process...
and of course how to develop the kinds of skills required at all levels to
integrate and effectively use ICTs in the full range of these activities
(eSkills).
 
Best, 
 
MBG

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Director
The Information Society Institute (TISI)
Cape Town, South Africa
tel. admin +27(0)217-129-782
SA Cell +27-769-825-175
email: gurstein at gmail.com

Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development
Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St.
Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1
http://www.communityinformatics.net <http://www.communityinformatics.net/> 
tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: members-bounces at afcn.org [mailto:members-bounces at afcn.org] On Behalf
Of Rich Greenfield
Sent: January-16-09 3:00 AM
To: members at afcn.org
Subject: [AFCN Members] House Draft of Economic Stimulus Bill:
BroadbandProvisions



I've excerpted the explicit broadband provisions, which are in four
different parts of the 240 page draft House bill, and added the related
broadband paragraphs from the draft House report, and attached these as a
Word document of 10 pages. This may be easier to read, analyze or
distribute. 

 

The full bill and report are available on the House Appropriations page at
<mhtml:{AEDED820-BE5B-4C64-AA9F-5EEFC5071765}mid://00000212/!x-usc:http://ap
propriations.house.gov/> http://appropriations.house.gov/ and I've attached
a summaryof the bill since there are so many sections that will impact local
economies. You may want to search the bill or the summary with your favorite
keywords to find out other provisions about shcools, libraries, etc.

 

At first glance, the big government broadband players in this bill will be
RUS ($2,825,000,000 for grants and loans), NTIA (Sec. 3102, $2,825,000,000,
of which $1 billion is for wireless voice and aedvanced broadband and $1,825
for broadband deployment grants and, finally, Commerce (PL110-385,
$350,000,000 for broadband data and mapping). Total of  $6 billion.

 

There don't seem to be any new definitions of broadband for the RUS money,
but the NTIA money is suject to the definitions in Sect. 3102 where:

(1) the term ''advanced broadband service'' means a service delivering data
to the end user transmitted at a speed of at least 45 megabits per second
downstream and at least 15 megabits per second upstream; 

(2) the term ''advanced wireless broadband service'' means a wireless
service delivering to the end user data transmitted at a speed of at least 3
megabits per second downstream and at least 1 megabit per second upstream
over an end-to-end internet protocol wireless network;  

(3) the term ''basic broadband service'' means a service delivering data to
the end user transmitted at a speed of at least 5 megabits per second
downstream and at least 1 megabit per second upstream; 

(4) the term ''eligible entity'' means-

(A) a provider of wireless voice service, advanced wireless broadband
service, basic broadband service, or advanced broadband service;

(B) a State or unit of local government, or agency or instrumentality
thereof, that is or intends to be a provider of any such service; and

 (C) any other entity, including construction companies, tower-building
companies, or other service providers, that the NTIA authorizes by rule to
participate in the programs under this section, if such other entity is
required to provide access to the supported infrastructure on a neutral,
reasonable basis to maximize use;

 

Rich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/4948a643/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2009 Stimulus Executive Summary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 122124 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/4948a643/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Economic Recovery Bill Broadband Provisions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 54272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/4948a643/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00033.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/4948a643/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 19 09:02:55 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:32:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC statement to Open Consultations: support Remote
 Participation
In-Reply-To: <49739C29.6020705@wzb.eu>
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN> <49729405.90100@itforchange.net> <49739C29.6020705@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <07E15D1092024EB6B36777DED9C7ECD8@GINGERLAPTOP>

I agree with the strong concern I see for bringing more minority and hidden
groups to the IGF debates. So I think it is a good time to revisit the
possibility of supporting Remote Participation at the IGF.

Supporting Remote Participation at the Internet Governance Forum is a way
for the Internet Governance Caucus to foster concrete, positive change, by
promoting an initiative that makes real life improvements in inclusion in
the IGF process. The IGC should include a statement of support for Remote
Participation and the work of the RP Working Group in its statement to the
Open Consultations in February. This is a chance to have a tangible effect
as a result of our discussions and theory, at the same time as we continue
our theoretical debates on IG on the list. 

It is important that the IGF community recognize the success of the Remote
Participation effort at the IGF 2008, with more than 500 remote
participants, some attending throughout the night in their time zones.
Imagine the level of inclusion and local participation that will be possible
if the IGC and others support the Secretariat to showcase the Internet at
its very best through a renewed commitment to RP at the IGF 2009 in Cairo.
Of all the IG meetings held in the world, (IGF, ICANN, ITU and others) the
IGF has achieved the highest level of multistakeholder diversity and
inclusion. Greater inclusion in the IG debates is one of the IGF's principal
reasons for existing. Precisely in this moment of review of the IGF itself,
a project like RP - which added a significant number of participants through
its first serious effort - should become a high priority.

The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) is currently working on a
report about the IGF 2008 RP experience. However, because the report must be
accurate and provide details and feedback from the hubs and remote
participants, including the technical data collated by Dimdim, it will not
be ready before the IGC presents its statement at the open consultations. 

Therefore, we roughly summarize the RP experience at the IGF 2008 at
Hyderabad as follows:

Dimdim (http://www.dimdim.com/) was used to enable remote participation
during the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2008 meeting held in Hyderabad,
India, December 3 to 6. Five hundred twenty-two attendees from around the
world joined the main session and monitored seven different workshops. These
attendees participated in panel discussions through live chat and live audio
and video streaming, during the four-day event that broadcasted more than
450 event hours.

The number of hours attended averaged about 130 attendees per day and 16
attendees per room. There were 8 rooms in all, 1 main room and 7 workshop
rooms. Each web meeting averaged four remote hubs simultaneously connected.
Particular note was made of the possibilities offered for disabled persons.

Pre-IGF Training and on-site preparation were provided by Dimdim.
Registration was done through the IGF Secretariat.

In addition to individual attendance at the Hyderabad meetings through
remote participation, it is important to note that the majority of these
remote participants were part of remote hubs, or IGF RP meetings in Buenos
Aires (Argentina), Belgrade (Serbia), Sao Paolo (Brazil), Pune (India),
Lahore (Pakistan), Colombia, Barcelona (Spain) and two in Madrid (Spain).
These hubs were able to carry on significant discussions in relating the IGF
proceedings to their own regions, permitting the construction of foundations
for future projects and policies at local and regional levels. The RP also
generated and provided a platform for pre- and post- IGF discussion of
panels, workshops and ideas. Some videos from participants are available at:


Comment from the Sao Paolo, Brazil hub:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=7cZwbIQJrXQ

Comment from the Buenos Aires, Argentina hub:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=puRjbwL0O3M
 
Other video information available:
Marilia Maciel, RP WG coordinator:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=YC81UPStpcU 

Dimdim video:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=tHi3Dz7iHFc 


A statement from the IGC recognizing the success of the RP and encouraging
the Secretariat would be very helpful, in particular, if it proposes that
the Secretariat:
1.	Recognize the RPWG as a collaborating organization for the RP at the
IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation.
2.	Formally appoint a contact person in the Secretariat to liaise with
the RP WG.
3.	Formally appoint a contact person in the Host Country to work with
the RP WG to prepare, to publicize and to facilitate contacts.

RP has the capacity to expand the group of stakeholders that is least likely
to attend the IGF in person and the least likely to be heard. The IGF is
about discussion. Through Remote Participation we can include more facets of
the IG debates. Remote Participation will support the Secretariat and IGF
missions of inclusion and multistakeholderism, strengthening the IG and IGF
processes and helping balance the input of North and South. The IGC should
work to actively support Remote Participation. Including emphasis on RP in
the statement to the OC is a great way to do so.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Thanks, Ginger










____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jan 19 11:43:11 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:43:11 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <8C9E9678B8304C2BAA94E64E5AA44F90@PCbureau>
References: <95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN> <8C9E9678B8304C2BAA94E64E5AA44F90@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <4974AD9F.2020507@rits.org.br>

... and now Belém, PA, Brazil. Take a look at:

http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=17&cd_language=2

frt rgds

--c.a.

jlfullsack wrote:
> Why a reference to "Davos" and not to "porto Alegre" ?
> Aren't we CS and not business gurus ?
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; "'Parminder'"
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:00 PM
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
> altogether.
> 
> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
> 
> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
> of possibilities here we should explore.
> 
> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully ....
> 
> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in
> February
> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
> operate
> 
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>>
>> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>>
>> My comments are inside
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
>> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
>> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
>> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
>> suitably strengthened.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
>> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF
>> should
>> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
>> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
>> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
>> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that
>> the
>> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
>> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
>> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
>> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
>> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
>> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
>> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
>> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
>> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
>> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
>> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
>> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from
>> the
>> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
>> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
>> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
>> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
>> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
>> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
>> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
>> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
>> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be
>> recognized
>> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
>> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
>> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
>> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
>> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
>> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the
>> general
>> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
>> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
>> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>> interest.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
>> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
>> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
>> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
>> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
>> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL,
>> which
>> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
>> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud
>> enough to
>> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
>> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From andersj at elon.edu  Mon Jan 19 12:10:17 2009
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:10:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF 08 video
Message-ID: <B5F038942F75C24ABE8EE3FBC8308A5C0AB716A0@EV01.elon.edu>

Tying in to Ginger's topic of remote participation, I just want to say that the live video posted from Hyderabad was mostly of the highest quality, with only occasional technical difficulties with the video or audio. People anywhere who have Internet access were able to follow the action, and in some situations they had an advantage over many people in Hyderabad because they could monitor what was going on in the mainstage action AND at the other simultaneous workshops.

I managed to record a lot of the video off my computer screen and I have posted 101 video clips online from various sessions at IGF 2008. I confess I'm an amateur at video encoding, and I was doing this solo in the middle of the night several consecutive nights, so there are gaps in the sessions I recorded (the coverage is also somewhat spotty due to technical limitations of the software I was using). It is good, however, to have a fairly representative presentation of IGF 2008 action posted online. You can see it here:

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/internet_governance_forum_2008.xhtml

The file sizes are large due to my lack of skill with encoding; also, I recorded them as QuickTime files so they could be copied easily. I know these two points will be frustrating for some people, but I do also hope to get the videos posted on YouTube sometime.

Janna Anderson
Imagining the Internet

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 16:53:08 2009
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:53:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF 08 video
In-Reply-To: <B5F038942F75C24ABE8EE3FBC8308A5C0AB716A0@EV01.elon.edu>
References: <B5F038942F75C24ABE8EE3FBC8308A5C0AB716A0@EV01.elon.edu>
Message-ID: <45ed74050901191353s184cc79ag4d76097b7068045d@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Dr. or Ms. Anderson:

This is superb work, great quality accessed from here, enjoyable to
navigate, well documented, historic in content and delivery.  Exciting all
around.

What better way to introduce anyone in any field to networked virtual
conference participation and planetary-wide, creative interconnectivity as
well.

 I am in process of contacting you on other but related matters; still it
seems only right to thank you here among mutual colleagues.

Individual communication, with  very best wishes, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme; Communications Coordination Committee for
the U.N.
Online pre-ARPANet fw.
Original implementer GML tags => html.
Other affiliations on request.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu> wrote:

> Tying in to Ginger's topic of remote participation, I just want to say that
> the live video posted from Hyderabad was mostly of the highest quality, with
> only occasional technical difficulties with the video or audio. People
> anywhere who have Internet access were able to follow the action, and in
> some situations they had an advantage over many people in Hyderabad because
> they could monitor what was going on in the mainstage action AND at the
> other simultaneous workshops.
>
> I managed to record a lot of the video off my computer screen and I have
> posted 101 video clips online from various sessions at IGF 2008. I confess
> I'm an amateur at video encoding, and I was doing this solo in the middle of
> the night several consecutive nights, so there are gaps in the sessions I
> recorded (the coverage is also somewhat spotty due to technical limitations
> of the software I was using). It is good, however, to have a fairly
> representative presentation of IGF 2008 action posted online. You can see it
> here:
>
> http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/internet_governance_forum_2008.xhtml
>
> The file sizes are large due to my lack of skill with encoding; also, I
> recorded them as QuickTime files so they could be copied easily. I know
> these two points will be frustrating for some people, but I do also hope to
> get the videos posted on YouTube sometime.
>
> Janna Anderson
> Imagining the Internet
>
> ______________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090119/180b16af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 20 18:58:31 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:58:31 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70901190504q77a11433g9dc999a4f20a3a6d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>

I've been reviewing the inputs under this topic against the synthesis paper
we prepared and submitted last September (attached by Parminder earlier,
also available from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 )

What I read suggests that our statement adopted last September stands up
pretty well and is a good basis for February consultations. However in terms
of added emphasis and new content, I draw your attention to the following

>From Parminder

We should also assert that 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 needs 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. 

Do we agree with this summary?

Again from Parminder

The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to
carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest.

And from Jeanette

Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate extended
so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct connection to
New York has been a successful arrangement that provides flexibility. I
think it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the
IGF's management.


Any thoughts on this?



Most other comments seem to be effectively covered - are there any
additional thoughts not in our last submission or not covered above? We
should move towards a synthesis paper draft shortly.





Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 January 2009 00:05
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> 
> This also sets in the space to be utilized by the Developing Countries
> instead of a single side intervention by the Developed. I also agree
> that a more powerful representation participates at IGF but again the
> minority with the right mix of people from all three multistakeholder
> partners creates the right power to represent a country. Regional
> level IG groups should also be identified so that country level
> participation can be a real reality.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Dear Parminder and all
> >
> > I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and
> (3)
> > : IG and Developinng Countries.
> >
> > So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from
> > industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its
> > right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main
> > themes related to this issue :
> > (1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a
> > minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions
> on
> > IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
> > (2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet
> > resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and
> IXP,
> > in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services
> for
> > these countries.
> >
> > Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the
> > financing of both these themes.
> >
> > All the best
> > Jean-Louis Fullsack
> >
> > ---- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Parminder
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
> > Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> > Dear All
> >
> > The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> > views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> > considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> > ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society)
> mandated
> > that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> > participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for
> 2
> > days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted
> to
> > considering this particular issue.
> >
> > Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> > gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> > comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in
> Geneva
> > are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> > decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have
> important
> > bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may
> constitute
> > 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of
> the
> > IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our
> substantive
> > comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
> >
> > Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
> >
> > (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we
> will
> > that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
> specifically
> > global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the
> IGF
> > should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
> >
> > (2) We should also assert that 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 needs 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.
> >
> > (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> > able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global
> public
> > interest.
> >
> > Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the
> synthesis
> > paper on this subject.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> @skBajwa
> Answering all your technology questions
> http://www.askbajwa.com
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jan 21 09:59:05 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:59:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>
References: <701af9f70901190504q77a11433g9dc999a4f20a3a6d@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70F49616A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----

> Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its 
> mandate extended
> so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct 
> connection to
> New York has been a successful arrangement that provides 
> flexibility. I
> think it is important that no other UN organization gets 
> involved in the
> IGF's management.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


I have some thoughts about that. While I basically agree with the idea that no other UN organization needs to get involved in IGF's management, I am not so happy with the "direct connection to New York." There is a complete lack of transparency there. This is mainly an issue with respect to the MAG appointments; essentially civil society and other stakeholders helplessly "suggest" names to the Secretariat which then, with absolute discretion and using criteria we don;t see or understand, makes selections. I understand both the pros and cons of this arrangement, but would prefer a more democratic arrangement in which stakeholder groups actually choose their representatives. 


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 MMKovary at aol.com  Wed Jan 21 10:36:54 2009
From: MMKovary at aol.com (MMKovary at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:54 EST
Subject: [governance] Joining list as a new member
Message-ID: <cdc.41f41ac7.36a89b16@aol.com>

Dear All,
 
I joined this list a few weeks ago at the invitation of Sylvia  Caras.  I am 
just beginning to read emails and will sit back and try to get  the lay of the 
land before further posting or asking questions.
 
I am interested in the subject of internet governance as a result of my  
involvement in the International Disability Caucus as a volunteer as  a United 
Nations Representative of MindFreedom International (_www.mindfreedom.org_ 
(http://www.mindfreedom.org) ) regarding the  negotiations on the new United Nations 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with  Disabilities.  I am also a member 
of the World Network of Users and  Survivors of Psychiatry (_www.wnusp.net_ 
(http://www.wnusp.net) ) and  am a founding member of the Ithaca Mental Patients 
Advocacy Coalition (in  Ithaca, New York, USA).  I am also a moderator of a 
new list for the  International Network of Women with Disabilities.  By default, 
we are  primarily using Yahoo Groups to communicate with each other.  Issues 
have  arisen regarding how to use the Yahoo structure in an egalitarian 
manner.   We are continuing to struggle with these issues.  I look forward to  
educating myself regarding these issues as well as others that arise on this  list. 
 
I look forward to meeting you all in cyberspace.
 
Myra Kovary, M.L.A.
Therapeutic Landscape Design Consultant
_mmk29 at cornell.edu_ (mailto:mmk29 at cornell.edu) 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090121/5ce1ae56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From cls at rkey.com  Wed Jan 21 10:49:49 2009
From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:49:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] Joining list as a new member
In-Reply-To: <cdc.41f41ac7.36a89b16@aol.com>
References: <cdc.41f41ac7.36a89b16@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4977441D.6030501@rkey.com>

Welcome Myra,

If you are interested in reading about some of the historical background 
to Internet Governance, please feel free to have a look at my Ph.D 
dissertation at http://www.rkey.com/essays/diss.pdf (4Mb).

How to structure an egalitarian style of participation has been a 
long-standing and persistently challenging issue.

Craig Simon

MMKovary at aol.com wrote:
>  Dear All,
>  
> I joined this list a few weeks ago at the invitation of Sylvia Caras.  I 
> am just beginning to read emails and will sit back and try to get the 
> lay of the land before further posting or asking questions.
>  
> I am interested in the subject of internet governance as a result of my 
> involvement in the International Disability Caucus as a volunteer as 
> a United Nations Representative of MindFreedom International 
> (www.mindfreedom.org <http://www.mindfreedom.org>) regarding the 
> negotiations on the new United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
> Persons with Disabilities.  I am also a member of the World Network of 
> Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (www.wnusp.net <http://www.wnusp.net>) 
> and am a founding member of the Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy 
> Coalition (in Ithaca, New York, USA).  I am also a moderator of a new 
> list for the International Network of Women with Disabilities.  By 
> default, we are primarily using Yahoo Groups to communicate with each 
> other.  Issues have arisen regarding how to use the Yahoo structure in 
> an egalitarian manner.  We are continuing to struggle with these 
> issues.  I look forward to educating myself regarding these issues as 
> well as others that arise on this list. 
>  
> I look forward to meeting you all in cyberspace.
>  
> Myra Kovary, M.L.A.
> Therapeutic Landscape Design Consultant
> mmk29 at cornell.edu <mailto:mmk29 at cornell.edu>
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! 
> <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62>*
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Jan 21 11:01:58 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:01:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Joining list as a new member
In-Reply-To: <cdc.41f41ac7.36a89b16@aol.com>
References: <cdc.41f41ac7.36a89b16@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0901210801u19a3ea83jd63f4832727ac02e@mail.gmail.com>

Welome in this list and to share our experience.

Baudouin

2009/1/21 <MMKovary at aol.com>

>   Dear All,
>
> I joined this list a few weeks ago at the invitation of Sylvia Caras.  I am
> just beginning to read emails and will sit back and try to get the lay of
> the land before further posting or asking questions.
>
> I am interested in the subject of internet governance as a result of my
> involvement in the International Disability Caucus as a volunteer as
> a United Nations Representative of MindFreedom International (
> www.mindfreedom.org) regarding the negotiations on the new United Nations
> Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  I am also a member
> of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (www.wnusp.net)
> and am a founding member of the Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy Coalition
> (in Ithaca, New York, USA).  I am also a moderator of a new list for the
> International Network of Women with Disabilities.  By default, we are
> primarily using Yahoo Groups to communicate with each other.  Issues have
> arisen regarding how to use the Yahoo structure in an egalitarian manner.
> We are continuing to struggle with these issues.  I look forward to
> educating myself regarding these issues as well as others that arise on this
> list.
>
> I look forward to meeting you all in cyberspace.
>
> Myra Kovary, M.L.A.
> Therapeutic Landscape Design Consultant
> mmk29 at cornell.edu
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62>
> *
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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 <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090121/cddf096f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 21 12:15:58 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:45:58 -0430
Subject: [governance] DiploFoundation Call for Applications IGCBP 2009
Message-ID: <80AB5692B3C24B9CAE8B2B7DF6F917AF@GINGERLAPTOP>

 

Call for Applications

Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme 2009

 

DiploFoundation is currently accepting applications for the 2009 Internet
Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP09). This online programme is
designed to improve Internet governance (IG) related knowledge and skills
for participants mainly from developing countries. The Programme also
facilitates community-building among individuals with different national,
cultural, and professional backgrounds.

 

 

The Programme

 

The programme offers 120 places for young professionals from diverse
stakeholder backgrounds in IG-related fields and is open to individuals from
around the world. The first two phases of the programme are conducted
entirely online.

 

The programme includes three phases, which take place over eight months
during 2009:

 

1. The online training phase consists of:

 

-- a 11-week long Foundation Course, introducing IG policy, process, and
actors, and covering 5 thematic baskets: Infrastructure and Standardisation
Basket, Legal Basket, Economic Basket, Socio-Cultural Basket, Development
Basket, and a section on the IG Process and Actors; 

 

-- a 7-week long module of the Advanced Course, covering one advanced topic
to be chosen by each participant from a pool of modules such as:
Intellectual Property Rights, Infrastructure and Economic Models of
Interconnectivity, Privacy, Security and others.

 

Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include the
analysis of course materials, interactive group discussions using a variety
of communication tools, assignments, and exams.

 

Successful participants will receive a certificate of completion of the
programme.

 

 

2. The online policy research phase is an optional 3-month period of
supervised, collaborative online work focused on IG policy issues of highest
relevance to developing countries, and is closely linked to training
activities.

 

 

3. The optional policy immersion phase includes capacity-building
fellowships awarded to a number of successful participants in the programme,
such as internships with partner organisations including a fellowship with
the IGF Secretariat in Geneva, and attendance at IG-related meetings,
including the Internet Governance Forum later in the year.

 

 

Languages

 

Programme materials and the online platform website are fully in English.

 

Besides English-speaking groups, several bilingual groups will be formed for
the foundation course, having English as the primary language, and either
Arabic, French, Portuguese, or Spanish as the secondary language for
communication and interaction.

 

 

Target Audience

 

Diplo seeks applications from the following categories of individuals from
both developed and developing countries: 

 

-- officials in government ministries and departments dealing with
IG-related issues (e.g., telecommunications, education, foreign affairs,
justice); 

-- postgraduate students and researchers in the IG field (e.g., in
telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development
studies); 

-- civil society activists in the IG field; 

-- journalists covering IG issues;

-- individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g., ISPs, software
developers). 

 

 

Timeline

 

2 March-17 May 2009 - Foundation Course on Internet Governance

25 May-17 July 2009 - Advanced Course on Internet Governance

1 September- 8 November 2009 - Policy Research Phase (optional)

July 2009 through 2009 - Policy Immersion (fellowships)

 

 

Fee 

 

1) Foundation course: Euro 500. 

2) Advanced course: Euro 500. 

3) Research phase: Euro 200. 

 

Applicants from developing countries (non-members of OECD) are eligible to
apply for scholarship support for the programme - a number of full and
partial scholarships will be offered. Applicants from developing countries
who will require financial assistance to attend the course should remember
to check the appropriate box on the Online Application Form.

 

 

Requirements

 

The applicants are required to have:

-- basic awareness and interest in IG issues;  

-- knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach in
international affairs;

-- fluency in English, as well as fluency in the second language for the
applicants to any of bilingual groups;

-- good writing skills, ability to summarize information and focus on
details;  

-- regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient);

-- minimum of 8 hours commitment per week during the programme. This is
perhaps the single most important requirement and should be evaluated
seriously by any potential applicants; 

-- readiness to participate in online consultations (once a week at
specified times).  

 

 

Deadline

 

The deadline for applications is 11 February 2009, by midnight UTC/GMT.

 

 

How to Apply

 

For further information and to apply, please visit: 

http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/ 

Do not hesitate to contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090121/a821e3e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 21 15:11:22 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:41:22 -0430
Subject: [governance] Statement OC February OC: the way forward
Message-ID: <DB9BB802DF5F44428E52ECB82ECDA174@GINGERLAPTOP>

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
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals
e&revision=_latest&timestamp=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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jan 22 09:21:31 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:21:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>
References: <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>
Message-ID: <8FCF1B0D-EEAF-43CA-AED9-B0864DC608B3@ciroap.org>

On 20/01/2009, at 6:58 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Do we agree with this summary?

(Parminder's, snipped) - yes, entirely.

> The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be  
> able to
> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public  
> interest.

Clearly yes.  To be frank, nobody takes the IGF seriously - even  
friendly civil society people in the ICT space, unless they are on  
this list (and sometimes even then), react with surprise when it is  
suggested that the IGF was once intended to be something like a  
"public policy ICANN" rather than just an annual symposium.  Properly  
funding it would not solve that problem, but it would help.

> Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate  
> extended
> so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct  
> connection to
> New York has been a successful arrangement that provides  
> flexibility. I
> think it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in  
> the
> IGF's management.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

I entirely agree with Milton that the interposition of the black box  
of the UN Secretariat prevents the MAG from being adequately  
democratic, but on the other hand I think Jeanette's main point was  
that we have only a fairly thin link to the UN bureaucracy at present  
and that it certainly should not be thickened.

-- 
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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Thu Jan 22 11:10:01 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:10:01 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
In-Reply-To: <8FCF1B0D-EEAF-43CA-AED9-B0864DC608B3@ciroap.org>
References: <6D65BA38C8054407B8321F840908BD0B@IAN>
	 <8FCF1B0D-EEAF-43CA-AED9-B0864DC608B3@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <61a136f40901220810o73bf35ear49e38e69c1948dc4@mail.gmail.com>

Funding is one major issue why ICANN is and will be able to extend its reach
and voice in the IG space.

Carlton Samuels

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 20/01/2009, at 6:58 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>  Do we agree with this summary?
>>
>
> (Parminder's, snipped) - yes, entirely.
>
>  The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able
>> to
>> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>> interest.
>>
>
> Clearly yes.  To be frank, nobody takes the IGF seriously - even friendly
> civil society people in the ICT space, unless they are on this list (and
> sometimes even then), react with surprise when it is suggested that the IGF
> was once intended to be something like a "public policy ICANN" rather than
> just an annual symposium.  Properly funding it would not solve that problem,
> but it would help.
>
>  Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate
>> extended
>> so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct connection to
>> New York has been a successful arrangement that provides flexibility. I
>> think it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the
>> IGF's management.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>
> I entirely agree with Milton that the interposition of the black box of the
> UN Secretariat prevents the MAG from being adequately democratic, but on the
> other hand I think Jeanette's main point was that we have only a fairly thin
> link to the UN bureaucracy at present and that it certainly should not be
> thickened.
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090122/37a7aaab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Jan 22 12:18:33 2009
From: MMKovary at aol.com (MMKovary at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:18:33 EST
Subject: [governance] IGF, MAG, and the CRPD
Message-ID: <be7.44d47920.36aa0469@aol.com>

Dear All,
 
I would hope that the IGF and MAG would be interested in disability access  
issues as well and would consider further networking with persons with  
disabilities with regard to the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with  
Disabilities (CRPD).   We have recently launched a new  International Network of 
Women With Disabilities (INWWD) in Quebec in August  2008.   We are still in the 
process of getting ourselves organized,  but I would hope that we might also 
contribute to the UN mission.  I  am one of the moderators of the new listserv 
and it is clear to me that  internet governance issues are interfering with our 
process.  We set up our  listserv with Yahoo Groups by default.  We also have 
a working group that  is connected with the International Disability Caucus 
for Indigenous  Persons with Disabilities.  The IGF and MAG should be 
networking more  closely with the International Disability Alliance (IDA) and the 
International  Disability Caucus (IDC).  IDA has an IDA CRPD Forum with Yahoo 
Groups  listserv and also a Steering Committee that communicates via Yahoo Groups.  
 The IDC also has a listserv on Yahoo Groups.  There are also several other  
large umbrella organizations that lobby for the rights of persons with  
disabilities, including Rehabilitation International (RI), the Survivors Corp  
(formerly the Landmine Survivors Network) and Handicapped International  (HI).  To 
my knowledge, all these umbrella organizations are connected with  the 
International Disability Alliance.
 
I find the disability rights issues to be very much front and center in the  
world right now.  Disability cuts across all the usual dividing lines and  
affects almost every single individual directly and probably every single human  
alive at least indirectly -- via family members, friends, costs of 
accessibility  vs the human cost of inaccessibility, etc.  We are making significant  
progress on the disability access issues regarding the internet with respect to  
the UN website and with respect to the design and layout of buildings all 
around  the world.  I hope the internet governance issues will also be pushed  
forward by including our agenda of non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation,  
autonomy, etc.  For more information on the Convention on the Rights of  
Persons with Disabilities, please check out _www.un.org/disabilities_ 
(http://www.un.org/disabilities) 
 
There are also websites available for most of the organizations that I  
mentioned above.
 
Being new to this list, it is not clear to me yet what has been discussed  
and what has not.  I sincerely hope this information is of value to the  group.
 
I'm happy to be a new member,
Myra Kovary, M.L.A
_mmk29 at cornell.edu_ (mailto:mmk29 at cornell.edu)  
_www.myrakovary.com_ (http://www.myrakovary.com)  
- a UN Representative of MindFreedom International (MFI) 
_www.mindfreedom.org_ (http://www.mindfreedom.org)  
- a member of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry  (WNUSP) 
_www.wnusp.net_ (http://www.wnusp.net)  
- a founding member and moderator of the new listserv for the International  
Network of Women With Disabilities (INWWD)
- a founding member of the Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy Coalition  (IMPAC)
 
In a message dated 1/22/2009 9:22:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jeremy at ciroap.org writes:
 
On  20/01/2009, at 6:58 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Do we agree with this  summary?

(Parminder's, snipped) - yes, entirely.

> The IGF  should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be  
>  able to
> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global  public  
> interest.

Clearly yes.  To be frank, nobody  takes the IGF seriously - even  
friendly civil society people in the  ICT space, unless they are on  
this list (and sometimes even then),  react with surprise when it is  
suggested that the IGF was once  intended to be something like a  
"public policy ICANN" rather than  just an annual symposium.  Properly  
funding it would not solve  that problem, but it would help.

> Our recommendations should  emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate  
> extended
> so  that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct  
>  connection to
> New York has been a successful arrangement that  provides  
> flexibility. I
> think it is important that no  other UN organization gets involved in  
> the
> IGF's  management.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

I entirely agree with  Milton that the interposition of the black box  
of the UN Secretariat  prevents the MAG from being adequately  
democratic, but on the other  hand I think Jeanette's main point was  
that we have only a fairly  thin link to the UN bureaucracy at present  
and that it certainly  should not be thickened.

-- 
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


**************Inauguration '09:  Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital. (http://news.aol.com/main/politics/inauguration?ncid=emlcntusnews00000003)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090122/60179ef3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 23 09:12:25 2009
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:12:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations
Message-ID: <3E28D5CE-41B5-43B8-8F03-D0EA9532CBA2@syr.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

As a reminder, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting  
nominations  - including self-nominations - for our recommendations  
for civil society members of the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  To  
promote transparency, a list of nominations received to date is now  
available on the IGC portal (http://www.igcaucus.org/mag- 
nominations).  This list will be updated as additional nominations are  
submitted.

In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:

     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
endorsement for their candidature.
     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
(required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
nomination is unsuccessful.
     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
MAG and IGF work.
     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
their positions within the MAG.

All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
Monday, 26 January 2009.

We have designed a webform to collect nominations.  To begin the  
nomination process, please click on the link below:

http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a

If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

Kindest regards,

2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
Javier Pinzón
Siranush Vardanyan
Stuart Hamilton
Rudi Vansnick
Renate Bloem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090123/88dace9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 24 03:21:47 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:51:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF, MAG, and the CRPD
In-Reply-To: <be7.44d47920.36aa0469@aol.com>
References: <be7.44d47920.36aa0469@aol.com>
Message-ID: <497ACF9B.9080700@itforchange.net>

Dear Myra

It is the IG Caucus's one of the primary purposes to try and be a 
conduit for diverse civil society groups, representing diverse 
interests, into global IG processes. To quote from the list of IGC's 
objectives as given in its charter  ( http://www.igcaucus.org/charter )

    * Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a
      stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices.

    * Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies
      with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at
      various forums involved with Internet governance policies.

We do solicit active participation from you and the groups that you 
mention in IGC processes. Regards.

Parminder


MMKovary at aol.com wrote:
> Dear All,
>  
> I would hope that the IGF and MAG would be interested in disability 
> access issues as well and would consider further networking with 
> persons with disabilities with regard to the new Convention on the 
> Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).   We have recently 
> launched a new International Network of Women With Disabilities 
> (INWWD) in Quebec in August 2008.   We are still in the process of 
> getting ourselves organized, but I would hope that we might also 
> contribute to the UN mission.  I am one of the moderators of the new 
> listserv and it is clear to me that internet governance issues are 
> interfering with our process.  We set up our listserv with Yahoo 
> Groups by default.  We also have a working group that is connected 
> with the International Disability Caucus for Indigenous Persons with 
> Disabilities.  The IGF and MAG should be networking more closely with 
> the International Disability Alliance (IDA) and the International 
> Disability Caucus (IDC).  IDA has an IDA CRPD Forum with Yahoo Groups 
> listserv and also a Steering Committee that communicates via Yahoo 
> Groups.  The IDC also has a listserv on Yahoo Groups.  There are also 
> several other large umbrella organizations that lobby for the rights 
> of persons with disabilities, including Rehabilitation International 
> (RI), the Survivors Corp (formerly the Landmine Survivors Network) and 
> Handicapped International (HI).  To my knowledge, all these umbrella 
> organizations are connected with the International Disability Alliance.
>  
> I find the disability rights issues to be very much front and center 
> in the world right now.  Disability cuts across all the usual dividing 
> lines and affects almost every single individual directly and probably 
> every single human alive at least indirectly -- via family members, 
> friends, costs of accessibility vs the human cost of inaccessibility, 
> etc.  We are making significant progress on the disability access 
> issues regarding the internet with respect to the UN website and with 
> respect to the design and layout of buildings all around the world.  I 
> hope the internet governance issues will also be pushed forward by 
> including our agenda of non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, 
> autonomy, etc.  For more information on the Convention on the Rights 
> of Persons with Disabilities, please check out www.un.org/disabilities 
> <http://www.un.org/disabilities>
>  
> There are also websites available for most of the organizations that I 
> mentioned above.
>  
> Being new to this list, it is not clear to me yet what has been 
> discussed and what has not.  I sincerely hope this information is of 
> value to the group.
>  
> I'm happy to be a new member,
> Myra Kovary, M.L.A
> mmk29 at cornell.edu <mailto:mmk29 at cornell.edu> 
> www.myrakovary.com <http://www.myrakovary.com>
> - a UN Representative of MindFreedom International (MFI) 
> www.mindfreedom.org <http://www.mindfreedom.org>
> - a member of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry 
> (WNUSP) www.wnusp.net <http://www.wnusp.net>
> - a founding member and moderator of the new listserv for the 
> International Network of Women With Disabilities (INWWD)
> - a founding member of the Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy Coalition 
> (IMPAC)
>  
> In a message dated 1/22/2009 9:22:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> jeremy at ciroap.org writes:
>
>     On 20/01/2009, at 6:58 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>     > Do we agree with this summary?
>
>     (Parminder's, snipped) - yes, entirely.
>
>     > The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding
>     to be 
>     > able to
>     > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public 
>     > interest.
>
>     Clearly yes.  To be frank, nobody takes the IGF seriously - even 
>     friendly civil society people in the ICT space, unless they are on 
>     this list (and sometimes even then), react with surprise when it is 
>     suggested that the IGF was once intended to be something like a 
>     "public policy ICANN" rather than just an annual symposium. 
>     Properly 
>     funding it would not solve that problem, but it would help.
>
>     > Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its
>     mandate 
>     > extended
>     > so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct 
>     > connection to
>     > New York has been a successful arrangement that provides 
>     > flexibility. I
>     > think it is important that no other UN organization gets
>     involved in 
>     > the
>     > IGF's management.
>     >
>     > Any thoughts on this?
>
>     I entirely agree with Milton that the interposition of the black box 
>     of the UN Secretariat prevents the MAG from being adequately 
>     democratic, but on the other hand I think Jeanette's main point was 
>     that we have only a fairly thin link to the UN bureaucracy at
>     present 
>     and that it certainly should not be thickened.
>
>     -- 
>     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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Inauguration '09*: Get complete coverage 
> <http://news.aol.com/main/politics/inauguration?ncid=emlcntusnews00000003> 
> from the nation's capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090124/ca075943/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 24 03:33:16 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:03:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net> <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org> <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>

Dear All

See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
( 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss 
)

to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed 
over a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be 
affected by its new network management practices."

This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this 
discussion a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri

"a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms 
should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic 
on the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of 
a public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed 
for private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of 
special, and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) 
services, subject to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, 
regarding private IP based services. But just don't name them Internet, 
this is the 'global public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in 
a particular way, and cherish."

Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP 
based services should have a different regulatory regime.

 >The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband 
network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications 
service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone 
companies currently pay.

Extending the above argument it is possible to have

(1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality 
(NN) that is guided by democratic media principles - this means 
absolutely no content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different 
content, no tiered Internet etc

(2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial 
applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on 
a non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust 
based NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom 
is a oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep 
a tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for 
only by consumers on bandwidth cost basis.

The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the 
NN issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and 
complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.

Parminder


  FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices


PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp. 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, 
the nation's biggest cable TV operator, is being investigated by the 
Federal Communications Commission 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org> 
over concerns that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone 
service at the expense of similar services from competitors.

In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this 
''disparate treatment.''

Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has 
until Jan. 30 to respond.

Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the 
FCC cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, 
an issue that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is 
the idea that Internet service providers should not give certain types 
of online data better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing 
down traffic for heavy users if there is Internet congestion in their 
area, regardless of what type of data they are consuming.

Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call 
placed when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC 
noted that Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed 
over a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be 
affected by its new network management practices.

The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband 
network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications 
service subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies 
currently pay.

Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said 
his group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its 
network management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''

Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.

Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.


Parminder wrote:
> >>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
> > any special treatment of their content
>
> >I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.
>
> Avri,
>
> Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I 
> may mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 
> 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms 
> should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any 
> content/traffic on the basis of higher charges. This should be the 
> defining principle of a public Internet. On the other hand IP is an 
> open technology allowed for private uses, and carriers can be allowed 
> to run VPN kind of special, and more privately-oriented (with higher 
> private-ness) services, subject to a different regulatory regime, if 
> necessary, regarding private IP based services. But just don't name 
> them Internet, this is the 'global public' claim on the Internet - 
> that we all know in a particular way, and cherish.
>
> Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To 
> foster "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media 
> can hardly be fostered on an Internet with 
> pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models. It requires a fully open 
> and public Internet as described above, with an equal treatment of all 
> content and traffic on it.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it 
> may be useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in 
> his paper on 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my 
> using even the relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) 
> which is deliberately more nuanced, and should therefore have been 
> more acceptable.
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content 
>>> providers for
>>> > any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
>>> > Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content 
>>> as per
>>> > different charges.
>>> >
>>> >
>> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email 
>> is as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a 
>> small point based on my possibl flawed understanding
>>
>> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this 
>> to content providers.
>>
>> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no 
>> prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream 
>> downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it 
>> maps perfectly).  I.e. Access providers can provide different service 
>> levels for those who are happy with best effort for their email and 
>> occasional surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with 
>> ultra low latency for playing massive online distributed games.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the 
>> premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not 
>> sure how that fits into the puzzle.
>>
>> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who 
>> provides a small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only 
>> uses a trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand 
>> videos are using  large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  
>> Should they be given the same access and be charged the same?
>>
>> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating 
>> because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a 
>> content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of 
>> bandwidth used (something else).
>>
>> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an 
>> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable 
>> price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
>>
>>
>> a.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090124/2da225b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Jan 24 05:50:11 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:20:11 -0430
Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations - corrected
 link
In-Reply-To: <3E28D5CE-41B5-43B8-8F03-D0EA9532CBA2@syr.edu>
References: <3E28D5CE-41B5-43B8-8F03-D0EA9532CBA2@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6EBB4D57C8574B89865233F9C979ED6C@GINGERLAPTOP>

The link to the list of MAG Nominations will work properly if you remove the
closing parenthesis:

http://www.igcaucus.org/mag-nominations 

 

Saludos,

Ginger

 

 

 

 

 

Derrick said:

 

To promote transparency, a list of nominations received to date is now
available on the IGC portal (http://www.igcaucus.org/mag-nominations) .
This list will be updated as additional nominations are submitted.

 

 

 

  _____  

De: Derrick L. Cogburn [mailto:dcogburn at syr.edu] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 23 de Enero de 2009 09:42 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations

 

Dear Colleagues,

As a reminder, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
nominations  - including self-nominations - for our recommendations for
civil society members of the Internet

Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  To promote
transparency, a list of nominations received to date is now available on the
IGC portal (http://www.igcaucus.org/mag-nominations).  This list will be
updated as additional nominations are submitted.

 

In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:


    * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
endorsement for their candidature.
    * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
(required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
nomination is unsuccessful.
    * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
MAG and IGF work.
    * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
their positions within the MAG.

All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
Monday, 26 January 2009.

We have designed a webform to collect nominations.  To begin the nomination
process, please click on the link below:

http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a

If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

Kindest regards,

2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

Javier Pinzón
Siranush Vardanyan
Stuart Hamilton
Rudi Vansnick
Renate Bloem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090124/18dbe298/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From asif at kabani.co.uk  Sat Jan 24 13:57:42 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:57:42 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
	 <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net> <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901241057s6ffae6a9vffc4f48a7bf1f99d@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for the updates, keep us posted.


With Best regards


Sincerely Yours



Asif Kabani

2009/1/24 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> Dear All
>
> See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
> (
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
> )
>
> to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over
> a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by
> its new network management practices."
>
> This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this discussion
> a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri
>
> "a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms
> should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on
> the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
> public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
> private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and
> more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish."
>
> Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP based
> services should have a different regulatory regime.
>
>>The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband
>> network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications
>> service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies
>> currently pay.
>
> Extending the above argument it is possible to have
>
> (1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality (NN)
> that is guided by democratic media principles - this means absolutely no
> content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different content, no tiered
> Internet etc
>
> (2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial
> applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on a
> non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust based
> NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom is a
> oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep a
> tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for only by
> consumers on bandwidth cost basis.
>
> The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the NN
> issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and
> complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices
>
> PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp., the nation's biggest cable TV operator,
> is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission over concerns
> that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone service at the expense
> of similar services from competitors.
>
> In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this
> ''disparate treatment.''
>
> Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has
> until Jan. 30 to respond.
>
> Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the FCC
> cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, an issue
> that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is the idea that
> Internet service providers should not give certain types of online data
> better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing down traffic for heavy
> users if there is Internet congestion in their area, regardless of what type
> of data they are consuming.
>
> Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call placed
> when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC noted that
> Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over a separate
> network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by its new
> network management practices.
>
> The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband network,
> the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications service
> subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies currently
> pay.
>
> Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said his
> group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its network
> management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''
>
> Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.
>
> Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>
>>>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
>> any special treatment of their content
>
>>I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.
>
> Avri,
>
> Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I may
> mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content
> provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not be
> able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the basis of
> higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a public Internet.
> On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for private uses, and
> carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and more
> privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish.
>
> Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To foster
> "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media can hardly be
> fostered on an Internet with pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models.
> It requires a fully open and public Internet as described above, with an
> equal treatment of all content and traffic on it.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it may be
> useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his paper on
> 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using even the
> relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is deliberately
> more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
>
>>
>> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers
>> for
>> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
>> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per
>> different charges.
>>
>>
>
> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is as
> much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small point
> based on my possibl flawed understanding
>
> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to
> content providers.
>
> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no prohibition
> against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream downstream
> distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps perfectly).
> I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels for those who are
> happy with best effort for their email and occasional surfing and for those
> who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency for playing massive online
> distributed games.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the premium
> service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not sure how that
> fits into the puzzle.
>
> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides a
> small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a trickle of
> uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos are using  large
> amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they be given the same
> access and be charged the same?
>
> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating because
> of the nature of content or the business relationship with a content
> provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of bandwidth used
> (something else).
>
> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an
> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable price
> (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
>
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Jan 24 14:28:38 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:28:38 +1100
Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <3E28D5CE-41B5-43B8-8F03-D0EA9532CBA2@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D19BB1841D3C450581F401A41178222E@IAN>

Can I just remind everyone that the deadline for this is Monday, 26th?  The
Nomcom is on a very tight schedule as it is required to get names to the
Secretariat by February 15. While its entirely up to the Nomcom to decide
how to deal with late nominations, it’s best we make every possible effort
to give them time to consider nominations thoroughly.

 

It’s important to present the best field of candidates possible, so that IGC
can select some excellent names to forward to the Secretariat for
consideration. So please consider nominating someone else, or
self-nominating, which is fine, by the deadline. Due to circumstances beyond
our control this process has had to be conducted in a very tight timeframe,
so please give some thought over the next few days to boosting the field of
nominees. 

 

It would be great to see many more names added before the deadline. 

 

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: 24 January 2009 01:12
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations

 

Dear Colleagues,

As a reminder, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
nominations  - including self-nominations - for our recommendations for
civil society members of the Internet

Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  To promote
transparency, a list of nominations received to date is now available on the
IGC portal (http://www.igcaucus.org/mag-nominations).  This list will be
updated as additional nominations are submitted.

 

In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:


    * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
endorsement for their candidature.
    * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
(required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
nomination is unsuccessful.
    * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
MAG and IGF work.
    * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
their positions within the MAG.

All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
Monday, 26 January 2009.

We have designed a webform to collect nominations.  To begin the nomination
process, please click on the link below:

http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a

If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).

Kindest regards,

2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee

Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)

Javier Pinzón
Siranush Vardanyan
Stuart Hamilton
Rudi Vansnick
Renate Bloem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090125/e09741fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 13:31:20 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:31:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
	 <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net> <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901251031t3f74d19dp525a17110d096be8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
> (
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
> )
>
> to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over
> a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by
> its new network management practices."
>
> This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this discussion
> a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri
>
> "a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms
> should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on
> the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
> public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
> private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and
> more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish."
>
> Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP based
> services should have a different regulatory regime.
>
>>The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband
>> network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications
>> service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies
>> currently pay.
>
> Extending the above argument it is possible to have
>
> (1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality (NN)
> that is guided by democratic media principles - this means absolutely no
> content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different content, no tiered
> Internet etc
>
> (2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial
> applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on a
> non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust based
> NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom is a
> oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep a
> tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for only by
> consumers on bandwidth cost basis.
>
> The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the NN
> issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and
> complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.

The above is a bare sketch of a 2 tiered Internet.  We should not
advocate for this.

Here are 2 links (from the NN list) addressing the specific issue and
the more general.

http://telephonyonline.com/residential_services/news/comcast-congestion-0123/

http://lauren.vortex.com/ACM209.pdf

-- 
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  Sun Jan 25 21:16:38 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:16:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net><5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org><496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net> <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net> <8017791e0901241057s6ffae6a9vffc4f48a7bf1f99d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DEE@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

Curious timing for a regulatory action to be taken on a Sunday; perhaps that was because main man (ex-) FCC Chair Kevin Martin was but a small footnote in history by Tuesday afternoon.  

I am cross-posting from David Farber's IP list info on 2 forthcoming articles (in ACM)  below for IGCers info, on net neutrality:

A copy of just the point/counterpoint article on Net Neutrality is in 
the directory

http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public

Lee



-----Original Message-----
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com on behalf of Kabani
Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 1:57 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
 
Thank you for the updates, keep us posted.


With Best regards


Sincerely Yours



Asif Kabani

2009/1/24 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> Dear All
>
> See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
> (
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
> )
>
> to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over
> a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by
> its new network management practices."
>
> This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this discussion
> a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri
>
> "a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms
> should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on
> the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
> public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
> private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and
> more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish."
>
> Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP based
> services should have a different regulatory regime.
>
>>The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband
>> network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications
>> service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies
>> currently pay.
>
> Extending the above argument it is possible to have
>
> (1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality (NN)
> that is guided by democratic media principles - this means absolutely no
> content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different content, no tiered
> Internet etc
>
> (2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial
> applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on a
> non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust based
> NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom is a
> oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep a
> tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for only by
> consumers on bandwidth cost basis.
>
> The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the NN
> issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and
> complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices
>
> PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp., the nation's biggest cable TV operator,
> is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission over concerns
> that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone service at the expense
> of similar services from competitors.
>
> In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this
> ''disparate treatment.''
>
> Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has
> until Jan. 30 to respond.
>
> Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the FCC
> cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, an issue
> that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is the idea that
> Internet service providers should not give certain types of online data
> better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing down traffic for heavy
> users if there is Internet congestion in their area, regardless of what type
> of data they are consuming.
>
> Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call placed
> when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC noted that
> Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over a separate
> network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by its new
> network management practices.
>
> The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband network,
> the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications service
> subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies currently
> pay.
>
> Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said his
> group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its network
> management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''
>
> Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.
>
> Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>
>>>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
>> any special treatment of their content
>
>>I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.
>
> Avri,
>
> Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I may
> mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content
> provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not be
> able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the basis of
> higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a public Internet.
> On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for private uses, and
> carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and more
> privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish.
>
> Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To foster
> "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media can hardly be
> fostered on an Internet with pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models.
> It requires a fully open and public Internet as described above, with an
> equal treatment of all content and traffic on it.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it may be
> useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his paper on
> 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using even the
> relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is deliberately
> more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
>
>>
>> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers
>> for
>> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
>> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per
>> different charges.
>>
>>
>
> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is as
> much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small point
> based on my possibl flawed understanding
>
> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to
> content providers.
>
> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no prohibition
> against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream downstream
> distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps perfectly).
> I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels for those who are
> happy with best effort for their email and occasional surfing and for those
> who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency for playing massive online
> distributed games.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the premium
> service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not sure how that
> fits into the puzzle.
>
> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides a
> small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a trickle of
> uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos are using  large
> amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they be given the same
> access and be charged the same?
>
> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating because
> of the nature of content or the business relationship with a content
> provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of bandwidth used
> (something else).
>
> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an
> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable price
> (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
>
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090125/52ea4e17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From hongxueipr at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 22:31:52 2009
From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:31:52 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DEE@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>
References: <496C3954.6010402@itforchange.net>
	 <5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org>
	 <496D7E68.4060206@itforchange.net> <497AD24C.5060003@itforchange.net>
	 <8017791e0901241057s6ffae6a9vffc4f48a7bf1f99d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E740DEE@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <54535d540901251931j7d78386mf1f330df6cfdaaf2@mail.gmail.com>

Net neutrality burns hot on the EU telecoms agenda at <
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=9
>





On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Curious timing for a regulatory action to be taken on a Sunday; perhaps
> that was because main man (ex-) FCC Chair Kevin Martin was but a small
> footnote in history by Tuesday afternoon.
>
> I am cross-posting from David Farber's IP list info on 2 forthcoming
> articles (in ACM)  below for IGCers info, on net neutrality:
>
> A copy of just the point/counterpoint article on Net Neutrality is in
> the directory
>
> http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kabani.asif at gmail.com on behalf of Kabani
> Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 1:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
>
> Thank you for the updates, keep us posted.
>
>
> With Best regards
>
>
> Sincerely Yours
>
>
>
> Asif Kabani
>
> 2009/1/24 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> > Dear All
> >
> > See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
> > (
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
> > )
> >
> > to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed
> over
> > a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected
> by
> > its new network management practices."
> >
> > This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this
> discussion
> > a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri
> >
> > "a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms
> > should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic
> on
> > the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
> > public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
> > private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and
> > more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> > different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> > services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> > claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and
> cherish."
> >
> > Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP based
> > services should have a different regulatory regime.
> >
> >>The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband
> >> network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications
> >> service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone
> companies
> >> currently pay.
> >
> > Extending the above argument it is possible to have
> >
> > (1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality (NN)
> > that is guided by democratic media principles - this means absolutely no
> > content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different content, no
> tiered
> > Internet etc
> >
> > (2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial
> > applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on a
> > non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust
> based
> > NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom is a
> > oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep a
> > tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for only
> by
> > consumers on bandwidth cost basis.
> >
> > The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the NN
> > issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and
> > complications here that will need to be further worked on in this
> respect.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> > FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices
> >
> > PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp., the nation's biggest cable TV
> operator,
> > is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission over
> concerns
> > that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone service at the
> expense
> > of similar services from competitors.
> >
> > In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this
> > ''disparate treatment.''
> >
> > Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has
> > until Jan. 30 to respond.
> >
> > Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the
> FCC
> > cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, an
> issue
> > that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is the idea
> that
> > Internet service providers should not give certain types of online data
> > better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing down traffic for
> heavy
> > users if there is Internet congestion in their area, regardless of what
> type
> > of data they are consuming.
> >
> > Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call
> placed
> > when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC noted
> that
> > Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over a
> separate
> > network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by its new
> > network management practices.
> >
> > The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband
> network,
> > the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications service
> > subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies
> currently
> > pay.
> >
> > Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said
> his
> > group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its network
> > management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''
> >
> > Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.
> >
> > Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.
> >
> >
> > Parminder wrote:
> >
> >>>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
> >> any special treatment of their content
> >
> >>I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I
> may
> > mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content
> > provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not be
> > able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the basis
> of
> > higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a public
> Internet.
> > On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for private uses, and
> > carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and more
> > privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a
> > different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based
> > services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'
> > claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and
> cherish.
> >
> > Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To
> foster
> > "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media can hardly
> be
> > fostered on an Internet with pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience
> models.
> > It requires a fully open and public Internet as described above, with an
> > equal treatment of all content and traffic on it.
> >
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> > PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it may
> be
> > useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his paper
> on
> > 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using even the
> > relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is
> deliberately
> > more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.
> >
> >
> > Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers
> >> for
> >> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
> >> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per
> >> different charges.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is as
> > much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small point
> > based on my possibl flawed understanding
> >
> > If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to
> > content providers.
> >
> > Not included is doing this to other service providers and no prohibition
> > against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream downstream
> > distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps perfectly).
> > I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels for those who
> are
> > happy with best effort for their email and occasional surfing and for
> those
> > who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency for playing massive
> online
> > distributed games.
> >
> > Is that correct?
> >
> > I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the premium
> > service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not sure how
> that
> > fits into the puzzle.
> >
> > Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides a
> > small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a trickle
> of
> > uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos are using
> large
> > amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they be given the same
> > access and be charged the same?
> >
> > It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating
> because
> > of the nature of content or the business relationship with a content
> > provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of bandwidth
> used
> > (something else).
> >
> > And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an
> > activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable
> price
> > (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090126/9974b539/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From asif at kabani.co.uk  Mon Jan 26 04:54:51 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:54:51 +0500
Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations
In-Reply-To: <D19BB1841D3C450581F401A41178222E@IAN>
References: <3E28D5CE-41B5-43B8-8F03-D0EA9532CBA2@syr.edu>
	 <D19BB1841D3C450581F401A41178222E@IAN>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901260154g2fc91786hb69606ab9ca68816@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,


Thank you for the updates.


With Best Regards


Sincerely Yours


Asif Kabani

2009/1/25 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Can I just remind everyone that the deadline for this is Monday, 26th?  The
> Nomcom is on a very tight schedule as it is required to get names to the
> Secretariat by February 15. While its entirely up to the Nomcom to decide
> how to deal with late nominations, it's best we make every possible effort
> to give them time to consider nominations thoroughly.
>
>
>
> It's important to present the best field of candidates possible, so that IGC
> can select some excellent names to forward to the Secretariat for
> consideration. So please consider nominating someone else, or
> self-nominating, which is fine, by the deadline. Due to circumstances beyond
> our control this process has had to be conducted in a very tight timeframe,
> so please give some thought over the next few days to boosting the field of
> nominees.
>
>
>
> It would be great to see many more names added before the deadline.
>
>
>
> 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: 24 January 2009 01:12
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Reminder - 2009 IGC MAG Nominations
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As a reminder, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is now accepting
> nominations  - including self-nominations - for our recommendations for
> civil society members of the Internet
>
> Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  To promote
> transparency, a list of nominations received to date is now available on the
> IGC portal (http://www.igcaucus.org/mag-nominations).  This list will be
> updated as additional nominations are submitted.
>
>
>
> In making nominations, please keep in mind the following:
>
>     * If nominating someone other than yourself, please obtain that
> person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's
> endorsement for their candidature.
>     * Each nomination should include a brief biographical statement
> (required to submit the nomination).  This bio should describe clearly
> the activities and/or positions taken by the person in the Internet
> Governance and broader Information Society arena.  The person should
> be informed that these details may be published by IGC even if the
> nomination is unsuccessful.
>     * Also, please include a brief description of why the nominated
> person would be a good civil society and IGC representative on the
> MAG.  The description should also include considerations of the degree
> to which the nominee can invest the time and energy to give the civil
> society issues the attention they need to stay at the forefront of the
> MAG and IGF work.
>     * For those nominees who are already on the MAG, their
> descriptions should also briefly mention how they carried out their
> responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing the
> IGC and broader civil society positions. Their level and manner of
> engagement with the IGC, and the broader civil society constituencies,
> may also be mentioned.
>
> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the
> MAG, the nominee will keep up a strong engagement with civil society
> consituencies, including and especiay the IGC.  They will endeavor to
> keep civil society constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG
> proceedings and related matters, as well as present and advocate for
> their positions within the MAG.
>
> All nominations must be submitted no later than midnight UTC on
> Monday, 26 January 2009.
>
> We have designed a webform to collect nominations.  To begin the nomination
> process, please click on the link below:
>
> http://websurvey.syr.edu/Survey.aspx?s=3ddd3e3c0a0247a1a0e4929c3e77e76a
>
> If you have any problems submitting your nomination, please do not
> hesitate to contact me (dcogburn at syr.edu).
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> 2009 IGC MAG Nominating Committee
>
> Derrick L. Cogburn (Chair)
>
> Javier Pinzón
> Siranush Vardanyan
> Stuart Hamilton
> Rudi Vansnick
> Renate Bloem
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bnkuerbi at syr.edu  Mon Jan 26 09:55:52 2009
From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:55:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project
 Headlines
In-Reply-To: <MAIL0588IB6AaA1Shsu0004d073@Mail05.feedblitz.com>
References: <MAIL0588IB6AaA1Shsu0004d073@Mail05.feedblitz.com>
Message-ID: <28cfc1a40901260655q7a0c69d3ia3ce88a1632a850f@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, apologies in advance for crossposting.

Best,

Brenden


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internet Governance Project <info at internetgovernance.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu


 [image: Internet Governance Project]

January 26, 2009

Revenge of the .xxx domain? <#11f136ebb6a5b022_11f136bc3c571b1b_0>
SOTN: Private sector borrows IGP's ideas; govts apparently balk at splitting
ICANN <#11f136ebb6a5b022_11f136bc3c571b1b_1>
Search Internet Governance Project
Headlines<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Search=175425>
------------------------------
Revenge of the .xxx domain?
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=37980616&f=175425&u=11399494>

In what may prove to be the biggest sleeper Internet governance issue of the
year, ICM Registry has publicly posted its filings for the Independent
Review Panel that will decide whether ICANN acted improperly in rejecting
its application for a .xxx domain. ICM Registry participated in ICANN's 2004
round of "sponsored" top level domain additions. Its application to run a
top level domain reserved for adult content provoked a global controversy
when the Bush Administration, responding to a mass mobilization from its
base of religious conservative groups, pressured ICANN to reverse its June
1, 2005 vote that the .xxx domain met its eligibility criteria. ICANN's
Board eventually killed the application in March of 2007.

This is the first usage of ICANN's Independent Review Process. The ruling in
this case will have major implications for ICANN's accountability and the
continuing controversy over the role of the U.S. government in ICANN's
affairs.

• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;12422;http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/521164994/4067728.html;Revenge+of+the+.xxx+domain?;950648>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main+Page;Revenge+of+the+.xxx+domain?;950648>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2f521164994%2f4067728.html&src=5>•

 SOTN: Private sector borrows IGP's ideas; govts apparently balk at
splitting ICANN <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=37906152&f=175425&u=11399494>

With civil society unfortunately not invited to participate in
Wednesday's State
of the Net<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11399494/http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2009/agenda.shtml>panel
on the "Future of ICANN and Internet Governance," it was heartening to
see that IGP's work infiltrated the discussion anyway.

The Washington-insider panel centered on what should be done when the
USG-ICANN Joint Project Agreement (JPA) expires in September 2009.
Unfortunately, no audio or transcript of the event was made available. Based
on other accounts the usual positions were laid out for the audience.
NetChoice's industry advocate Steve DelBianco pleaded for trademark
interests and religiously played the "takeover by other governments" fear
card, Brazilian government official Everton Lucero expressed the mantra of
other powerful governments that the U.S. has "inappropriate control of ICANN
and the DNS," and ICANN's Paul Levins maintained that ICANN was already an
"independent organization" and sought to dispel fears of ICANN gone wild in
a post-JPA world.

Only when DelBianco suggested that ICANN's responsibilities could be split
in two - with ICANN continuing to regulate gTLDs and some other organization
overseeing ccTLDs - did things become revealing.

• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;12422;http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/514456366/4059611.html;SOTN:+Private+sector+borrows+IGP%27s+ideas;+govts+apparently+balk+at+splitting+ICANN;950648>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main+Page%3BSOTN:+Private+sector+borrows+IGP%27s+ideas;+govts+apparently+balk+at+splitting+ICANN;950648>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2f514456366%2f4059611.html&src=5>•


   ------------------------------
*Click here to safely unsubscribe
now<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_MTEzOTk0OTR8MTc1NDI1fGlncEBsaXN0c2Vydi5zeXIuZWR1fDk1MDY0OA==_>from
"Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change
subscription settings<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Subscriptions=175425>
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f>*
------------------------------
------------------------------
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz<http://www.feedblitz.com>,
LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090126/d7f6ef59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 26 20:16:59 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:16:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
Message-ID: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>

I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals  
Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a  
consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in  
any particular order):

* Jeanette Hofmann
* Adam Peake
* Carlos Alfonso
* Ken Lohento
* Fouad Bajwa

Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,  
ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to  
choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating  
committee and to the coordinators for their patience.

-- 
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  Tue Jan 27 02:51:52 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:51:52 +1100
Subject: [governance] MAG nominations
Message-ID: <C7CEE17AA7984948A0EA6A9496DD39CD@IAN>

As I have received a couple of emails on this -

 

I am aware of a few nominations which were made in the last few hours before
the official close which have not yet appeared on the web site. I am sure
that Derrick will attend to this sometime during a reasonable waking hour
for a North American citizen and there will be a chance to review the
updated list in due course.

 

 

 

 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090127/277fc833/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 27 03:13:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:13:05 +1100
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>

Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and Anriette
Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.

Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie Currie,
Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
behalf.

And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal appeals,
and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and wise
group who will be able to deal with such issues.

IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see this
willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.

Thanks again to everyone involved!



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: 27 January 2009 12:17
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
> 
> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
> any particular order):
> 
> * Jeanette Hofmann
> * Adam Peake
> * Carlos Alfonso
> * Ken Lohento
> * Fouad Bajwa
> 
> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
> 
> --
> 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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 27 04:03:06 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:03:06 +0500
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>

My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
my appreciation for confiding in us!

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and Anriette
> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>
> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie Currie,
> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
> behalf.
>
> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal appeals,
> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and wise
> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>
> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see this
> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>
>
>
> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>
>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>> any particular order):
>>
>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>> * Adam Peake
>> * Carlos Alfonso
>> * Ken Lohento
>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>
>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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 pgo at info.fundp.ac.be  Tue Jan 27 06:22:44 2009
From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe Goujon)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:22:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] engage researcher for 24 month full time namur belgique
Message-ID: <79cbb4$7cb16f@relay.skynet.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>http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html 
)


A researcher (24 months 100% - M/F)

Normaly beginning of September 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
Ph.d.  (or high level master) from philosophy or 
social sciences (with a very good knowledge 
concerning philosophy of governance and 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/>http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/)

- Computer sciences department 
(<http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf>http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf )
- an international network of 15 European labs expert in the field



Procedure of recruitment
CV

Interview

Test

CV and accompanying letter of motivation to be 
sent before 1st June (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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090127/833c3589/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 27 09:03:45 2009
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:03:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	 <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5509d940901270603m66da13actd347b5501817079e@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you so much Jeremy and other NomCom members for your
great work, and thanks for the outgoing members, as well as the
new ones, as Ian wrote, it's the volunteers whose dedication
makes us alive.

izumi

2009/1/27 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and Anriette
>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>
>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie Currie,
>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>> behalf.
>>
>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal appeals,
>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and wise
>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>
>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see this
>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>
>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>> any particular order):
>>>
>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>> * Adam Peake
>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>> * Ken Lohento
>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>
>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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
>
>



-- 
                        >> 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 katitza at datos-personales.org  Tue Jan 27 11:27:18 2009
From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] January 28: Privacy Campaign Start
Message-ID: <83b9e2bee27d35e28dd9ac8274ed4449.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org>

(Apologize for cross posting)

Dear friends,

January 28 is International Privacy Day, the day that the first
international convention for privacy was announced. Many groups around the
world are celebrating this day.

Request your government to support the Council of Europe Privacy
Convention 108 and to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation based in
that standard.

We urge organizations around the world to begin similar campaigns in their
own countries.  Start your campaign on January 28, 2009 and continue until
we get support for the international privacy convention.

Join the coordination group of the international campaign, by sending a
message to thepublicvoice (at) datos-personales (dot) org or by 
subscribing directly through
http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/privacy-thepublicvoice.org

In the United States, the US Privacy Coalition (including EPIC) is
launching a campaign to urge the US government to support the Council of
Europe Privacy Convention.

Here is a quick summary of the Privacy Convention:

In order to secure for every individual, whatever his/her nationality or
residence, respect for his/her rights and fundamental freedoms, and in
particular his/her right to privacy, with regard to automatic processing
of personal data relating to him/her, the Council of Europe elaborated the
“Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic
Processing of Personal Data” which was opened for signature on 28 January
1981. To this day, it still remains the only binding international legal
instrument with a worldwide scope of application in this field, open to
any country, including countries, which are not members of the Council of
Europe.

Why is the Privacy Convention still important? As the Net Dialogue
Initiative explains:

In addition to being the first legally binding international instrument in
the area of data protection, this Convention has
With stood the test of time by being adaptive and fairly rigorous. Today
the principles of this agreement are being examined for their
applicability to the collection and processing of biometric data.


Should a non-European Country Support the Council of Europe Privacy
Convention?

Many countries around the world are discussing or have signed the Council
of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. The Cybercrime Convention expanded law
enforcement authority without oversight or accountability. It was opposed
by many human rights organizations and NGOs around the world. No one
should tell us now that we cannot ask our countries to support a good
Council of Europe convention!

Now [INSERT YOUR COUNTRY] has the opportunity to support a fundamental
human right and promote the international convention that helps to
safeguard privacy. This would be a powerful and timely action. We will
start on January 28, 2009 and continue until we get support for the
international privacy convention.

Join the coordination group of the international campaign, by sending a
message to thepublicvoice (at) datos-personales (dot) org or by 
subscribing directly through
http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/privacy-thepublicvoice.org

Lets start working, we have an important campaign!


Marc Rotenberg
Lillie Coney
Katitza Rodriguez

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SAMPLE RESOLUTION (For the United States Senate)
January 29, 2009


Expressing a need for the accession to the Council of Europe's
Convention 108 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to
Automatic Processing of Personal Data

Whereas privacy is a fundamental right, valued by all Americans;

Whereas the increase of automatic processing and sharing of data
continuously intensifies the need for more effective implementation and
execution of legal instruments;

Whereas data security breaches along with cases of identity theft continue
pose a substantial risk to American consumers and businesses;

Whereas the continued transfer of personal data across national
borders raising increasing concern about the adequacy of privacy protection?

Whereas the current sectoral approach of legislation in
the United States is insufficient for appropriate privacy and data
protection;

Whereas the domain of privacy and data protection is international and
requires an overarching framework in order to acknowledge and protect the
fundamental rights of citizens;

Whereas the Council of Europe Convention 108 for the Protection of
Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data is the
most fundamental international instrument in the field: Now, therefore, be
it

Resolved, That the Senate-

(1) Requests accession to the Council of Europe's Convention 108 for the
Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal
Data

Signed,



-------------------------------------------------------------------


<INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION>

<INCLUDE BELOW OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION>

BACKGROUND


COE Privacy Convention - Text
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm

COE Privacy Convention - Background
http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/data_protection/background/11Background.asp

COE Privacy Convention - Ratifications
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=108&CM=8&DF=7/29/04&CL=ENG

International Privacy Day Campaign (with activities)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=54024777428&ref=nf

Privacy International
http://www.privacyinternational.org/

The Public Voice
http://www.thepublicvoice.org

EPIC Statement on Cybercrime Convention (July 26, 2005)
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/senateletter-072605.pdf

Net Dialogue, INITIATIVE: COE's Convention for the Protection of
Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data
http://www.netdialogue.org/initiatives/coeautoprocess/

Privacy and Human Rights: An International
Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments
http://epic.org/phr06/



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 28 04:49:21 2009
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:19:21 -0430
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org> <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
Message-ID: <055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>

This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:


First introductory paragraph from the FAQs at:
http://www.cox.com/policy/congestionmanagement/ 

Congestion Management FAQs

Updated 1/27/2009

In February, Cox will begin testing a new method of managing traffic on our
high-speed Internet network in our Kansas and Arkansas markets. During the
occasional times the network is congested, this new technology automatically
ensures that all time-sensitive Internet traffic - such as web pages, voice
calls, streaming videos and gaming - moves without delay. Less
time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet
newsgroups, may be delayed momentarily - but only when the local network is
congested. Our goal is to ensure that customers continue to experience the
consistently fast, reliable Internet service they've come to expect from
Cox.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Jan 28 08:04:39 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:04:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org> <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Ginger Paque schrieb:
> This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:

It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.

Good read on this:
The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>

Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Wed Jan 28 08:29:20 2009
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:29:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	 <055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <d349a12f0901280529h269f68a6k5ffb0adcd4ad00a8@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/28/09, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Ginger Paque schrieb:
> > This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>
> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
> packet inspection" is the technical term).


Well, to be fair, one can understand which application a particular
packet "belongs to" simply by checking the TCP header (in particular,
the destination ports which are usually fixed).

I would have some problems defining "ipso facto" this a "deep packet
inspection" , as this would imply that many useful applications on
the Internet (including,  for example, transparent proxying, whether
for the purpose of caching or not) become all at once "problematic".

Best,

Andrea
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090128/d989a7d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 08:36:54 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:36:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <d349a12f0901280529h269f68a6k5ffb0adcd4ad00a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	 <055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <d349a12f0901280529h269f68a6k5ffb0adcd4ad00a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901280536k45230070ga05a190808f0f56f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andrea Glorioso
<andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> On 1/28/09, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>> Ginger Paque schrieb:
>> > This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>>
>> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
>> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
>> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
>> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
>> packet inspection" is the technical term).
>
>
> Well, to be fair, one can understand which application a particular
> packet "belongs to" simply by checking the TCP header (in particular,
> the destination ports which are usually fixed).
>
> I would have some problems defining "ipso facto" this a "deep packet
> inspection" , as this would imply that many useful applications on
> the Internet (including,  for example, transparent proxying, whether
> for the purpose of caching or not) become all at once "problematic".

Agreed, most packets are inspected en route to their destination, so
they CAN be routed.

While Cox does have the deep pockets to buy a DPI box (and they are
not cheap), it doesn't appear that they are doing this.

-- 
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 asif at kabani.co.uk  Wed Jan 28 12:23:08 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:23:08 +0500
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <8017791e0901280923i4647f8ebud63c73262f40352b@mail.gmail.com>

I wish Jeanette Hofmann, Adam, Carolos, Ken and Fouad very best endovernment.


Asif Kabani

2009/1/27 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals Team for
> the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a consensus around this
> panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in any particular order):
>
> * Jeanette Hofmann
> * Adam Peake
> * Carlos Alfonso
> * Ken Lohento
> * Fouad Bajwa
>
> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating committee
> and to the coordinators for their patience.
>
> --
> 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
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Wed Jan 28 12:43:24 2009
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:43:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0901280536k45230070ga05a190808f0f56f@mail.gmail.com> (McTim's message of "Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:36:54 +0300")
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	<547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	<055914A05F0C4650B0C93D2B8D92756A@GINGERLAPTOP>
	<498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<d349a12f0901280529h269f68a6k5ffb0adcd4ad00a8@mail.gmail.com>
	<f65fb55e0901280536k45230070ga05a190808f0f56f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87bptrtjgj.fsf@digitalpolicy.it>

>>>>> "mctim" == McTim  <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes:

    > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andrea Glorioso
    > <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

    >> Well, to be fair, one can understand which application a
    >> particular packet "belongs to" simply by checking the TCP
    >> header (in particular, the destination ports which are usually
    >> fixed).
    >> 
    >> I would have some problems defining "ipso facto" this a "deep
    >> packet inspection" , as this would imply that many useful
    >> applications on the Internet (including, for example,
    >> transparent proxying, whether for the purpose of caching or
    >> not) become all at once "problematic".

    > Agreed, most packets are inspected en route to their
    > destination, so they CAN be routed.

However, contradicting myself, a quick glance at the list of "types of
traffic" in COX Frequently Asked Questions at
http://www.cox.com/policy/congestionmanagement/, there are at least a
couple of categories that do not at first glance lend themselves to
easy categorisation via shallow packet inspection (TCP destination
ports).

I guess a clarification from Cox might be useful.

Ciao,

--
      Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/
          M: +32-488-409-055         F: +39-051-930-31-133
	"Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the
     people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will
	secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost
	       protection. They are rules proscribed by 
	         Philip sober to control Philip drunk."
			   David J. Brewer (1893)
       An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090128/148ec18b/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jan 28 14:04:35 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:04:35 +1100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <498057E7.8060701@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <893958C64F444D018B946B4E537D1B98@IAN>

Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
traffic.

Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows



Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
To: internet-history at postel.org
Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"

Mathias,

Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators. 
I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
figure it out, too.

23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
> 
> Ginger Paque schrieb:
> > This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
> 
> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
> 
> Good read on this:
> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
> 
> Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jan 28 15:19:10 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (ken lohento)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:19:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org>

Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.

Rgds

KL

Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>   
>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and Anriette
>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>
>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie Currie,
>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>> behalf.
>>
>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal appeals,
>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and wise
>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>
>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see this
>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>
>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>> any particular order):
>>>
>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>> * Adam Peake
>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>> * Ken Lohento
>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>
>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be  Wed Jan 28 16:21:18 2009
From: Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:21:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <893958C64F444D018B946B4E537D1B98@IAN>
References: <893958C64F444D018B946B4E537D1B98@IAN>
Message-ID: <4980CC4E.4010601@skynet.be>

Well, nowadays, it would seem to me that there is a difference of scale 
and a difference of degree.

If one bloke once picked another´s apple years and years ago, it doesn't 
mean that the whole trade in apples can now be regulated by the shipping 
companies.

Just a thought,

CW

------------------------


Ian Peter wrote:
> Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
> currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
> effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
> traffic.
>
> Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
> the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
> From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
> To: internet-history at postel.org
> Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
>
> Mathias,
>
> Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
> customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
> algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
> field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
> next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
> and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators. 
> I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
> figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
> figure it out, too.
>
> 23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.
>
>
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
>> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>>
>> Ginger Paque schrieb:
>>     
>>> This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>>>       
>> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
>> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
>> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
>> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
>> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
>> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
>> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
>>
>> Good read on this:
>> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
>> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
>> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
>> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
>>
>> Ralf
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jan 28 16:44:37 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:44:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com> <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>



ken lohento wrote:
> Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.

Yes, but above all lets hope it won't imply any work...

jeanette
> 
> Rgds
> 
> KL
> 
> Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
>> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
>> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of 
>>> the
>>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and 
>>> Anriette
>>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>>
>>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie 
>>> Currie,
>>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>>> behalf.
>>>
>>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by 
>>> Jeremy,
>>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal 
>>> appeals,
>>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
>>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled 
>>> and wise
>>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>>
>>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to 
>>> see so
>>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
>>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I 
>>> see this
>>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>>
>>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>>
>>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>>> any particular order):
>>>>
>>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> * Adam Peake
>>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>>> * Ken Lohento
>>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>       
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 
>> 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>>
>>   
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From guru at itforchange.net  Wed Jan 28 22:45:40 2009
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:15:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com> <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org> <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <49812664.8030709@itforchange.net>

This is the paradox of the appeals team - we get the best people in and 
then are glad if they don't have any work :-)

Warm welcome to the new appeals team, thank them for volunteering their 
time and energies for this important task .... and thanks as well to the 
previous appeals team ....

regards
Guru

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> ken lohento wrote:
>> Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.
>
> Yes, but above all lets hope it won't imply any work...
>
> jeanette
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> KL
>>
>> Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
>>> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
>>> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members 
>>>> of the
>>>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, 
>>>> Willie Currie,
>>>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>>>> behalf.
>>>>
>>>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by 
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important 
>>>> function.
>>>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal 
>>>> appeals,
>>>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know 
>>>> that
>>>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled 
>>>> and wise
>>>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>>>
>>>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to 
>>>> see so
>>>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us 
>>>> on our
>>>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I 
>>>> see this
>>>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>>>> any particular order):
>>>>>
>>>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> * Adam Peake
>>>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>>>> * Ken Lohento
>>>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of 
>>>>> nominees to
>>>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>       
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus 
>>> Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090129/d107f893/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Jan 29 08:05:27 2009
From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:05:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <4980CC4E.4010601@skynet.be>
References: <893958C64F444D018B946B4E537D1B98@IAN> <4980CC4E.4010601@skynet.be>
Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A0A1@mfp01.IFLA.lan>

Dear Colleagues

I thought this was interesting in light of recent discussions on congestion management etc.

New Google Tools Determine if Your ISP Is Blocking BitTorrent
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/new-google-tool.html

[SNIP]: "It's interesting to see Google stepping up into the role of a proactive net-neutrality watchdog."

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: 'Ralf Bendrath'
Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox

Well, nowadays, it would seem to me that there is a difference of scale 
and a difference of degree.

If one bloke once picked another´s apple years and years ago, it doesn't 
mean that the whole trade in apples can now be regulated by the shipping 
companies.

Just a thought,

CW

------------------------


Ian Peter wrote:
> Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
> currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
> effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
> traffic.
>
> Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
> the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
> From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
> To: internet-history at postel.org
> Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
>
> Mathias,
>
> Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
> customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
> algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
> field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
> next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
> and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators. 
> I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
> figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
> figure it out, too.
>
> 23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.
>
>
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
>> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>>
>> Ginger Paque schrieb:
>>     
>>> This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>>>       
>> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
>> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
>> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
>> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
>> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
>> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
>> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
>>
>> Good read on this:
>> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
>> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
>> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
>> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
>>
>> Ralf
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan 29 09:38:13 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:38:13 -0200
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com> <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org> <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4981BF55.3070100@rits.org.br>

Like an excellent fire estinguisher which is never used. :)

--c.a.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
> ken lohento wrote:
>> Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.
> 
> Yes, but above all lets hope it won't imply any work...
> 
> jeanette
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> KL
>>
>> Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
>>> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
>>> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members
>>>> of the
>>>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and
>>>> Anriette
>>>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie
>>>> Currie,
>>>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>>>> behalf.
>>>>
>>>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>>>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal
>>>> appeals,
>>>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know
>>>> that
>>>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled
>>>> and wise
>>>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>>>
>>>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to
>>>> see so
>>>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on
>>>> our
>>>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I
>>>> see this
>>>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>>>> any particular order):
>>>>>
>>>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> * Adam Peake
>>>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>>>> * Ken Lohento
>>>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>       
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus
>>> Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
www.ritsnet.org.br
------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at acm.org  Thu Jan 29 10:27:14 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:27:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <1233242834.6395.10.camel@bower>

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 20:16 -0500, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> * Jeanette Hofmann
> * Adam Peake
> * Carlos Alfonso
> * Ken Lohento
> * Fouad Bajwa

My congratulations to the five of you.

and my thanks to the nomcom.

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 ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jan 29 10:57:20 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:57:20 -0200
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN> <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com> <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org> <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4981D1E0.3020404@rits.org.br>

Arrgh... eXtinguisher... Even in Portuguese (eXtintor)... :)

--c.a.

=============================

Like an excellent fire estinguisher which is never used. :)

--c.a.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
> ken lohento wrote:
>> Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.
> 
> Yes, but above all lets hope it won't imply any work...
> 
> jeanette
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> KL
>>
>> Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
>>> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
>>> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members
>>>> of the
>>>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and
>>>> Anriette
>>>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie
>>>> Currie,
>>>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>>>> behalf.
>>>>
>>>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>>>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal
>>>> appeals,
>>>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know
>>>> that
>>>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled
>>>> and wise
>>>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>>>
>>>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to
>>>> see so
>>>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on
>>>> our
>>>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I
>>>> see this
>>>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>>>> any particular order):
>>>>>
>>>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> * Adam Peake
>>>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>>>> * Ken Lohento
>>>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>       
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus
>>> Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
www.ritsnet.org.br
------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jan 29 12:41:08 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:41:08 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF questionnaire. Taking Stock
Message-ID: <4981EA34.30901@wzb.eu>

Hi everyone, the IGF secretariat writes that not many people have filled 
out the questionnaire yet and gave feedback on the Hyderabad meeting.
We have been asked to remind everyone that any form of feedback is 
welcome and that the original deadline (Jan. 31) will be postponed to 
give you the opportunity to participate in the taking stock exercise:


Please find below the link to the questionnaire:
http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008.php

Originally we set 31 January 2009 as the deadline, so that we have 
sufficient time to prepare a paper summarizing the input. However, as 
always, we will be flexible in this regard.

Of course, we also welcome contributions in any other format.

Best regards
Markus

jeanette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 13:36:06 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:36:06 +0500
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <4981D1E0.3020404@rits.org.br>
References: <859AAD47-4E16-4FB6-83FE-E656EDD926AE@ciroap.org>
	 <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	 <701af9f70901270103n20890a0rafbd3642c5b8bb17@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4980BDBE.4080108@panos-ao.org> <4980D1C5.2030002@wzb.eu>
	 <4981D1E0.3020404@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <701af9f70901291036x5f0406fep1389712d7d263690@mail.gmail.com>

Fire Extinguishers?

Does that mean we are the shiny red coloured elephant noze piped
containers ;o) Wooooshh! So we are only used to put out fires then :o)

But the world is trying to reduce its carbon foot print! Its the Green
Internet Now! So we are the Green Shiny Carbon Footprint Extinguishers
;o)

Ahhh....

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> Arrgh... eXtinguisher... Even in Portuguese (eXtintor)... :)
>
> --c.a.
>
> =============================
>
> Like an excellent fire estinguisher which is never used. :)
>
> --c.a.
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> ken lohento wrote:
>>> Dear Jeremy, Ian, all, thank you for your work and the confidence.
>>
>> Yes, but above all lets hope it won't imply any work...
>>
>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>>
>>> KL
>>>
>>> Fouad Bajwa a écrit :
>>>> My regards to the afore mentioned Appeals Team members and extending
>>>> my appreciation for confiding in us!
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members
>>>>> of the
>>>>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie
>>>>> Currie,
>>>>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>>>>> behalf.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by
>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>>>>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal
>>>>> appeals,
>>>>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know
>>>>> that
>>>>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled
>>>>> and wise
>>>>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to
>>>>> see so
>>>>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on
>>>>> our
>>>>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I
>>>>> see this
>>>>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>>>>>> Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>>>>>> consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>>>>>> any particular order):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>> * Adam Peake
>>>>>> * Carlos Alfonso
>>>>>> * Ken Lohento
>>>>>> * Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>>>>>> ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>>>>>> choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>>>>>> committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus
>>>> Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
> www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
> www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
> www.ritsnet.org.br
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 

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  Thu Jan 29 19:11:00 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:11:00 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF questionnaire. Taking Stock
In-Reply-To: <4981EA34.30901@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <38254549DE9F44B19E6371308E842208@IAN>

Yes, I would urge everyone interested to reply as individuals to this - by
January 31 if possible - so that the inputs are taken into account in the
synthesis paper. The questions also cover the review process, themes for
2009, etc, so please ensure the various viewpoints raised here are put
forward. There will not be an official IGC input here as there is no time to
complete a consultation properly.

http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008.php


Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: 30 January 2009 04:41
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] IGF questionnaire. Taking Stock
> 
> Hi everyone, the IGF secretariat writes that not many people have filled
> out the questionnaire yet and gave feedback on the Hyderabad meeting.
> We have been asked to remind everyone that any form of feedback is
> welcome and that the original deadline (Jan. 31) will be postponed to
> give you the opportunity to participate in the taking stock exercise:
> 
> 
> Please find below the link to the questionnaire:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2008.php
> 
> Originally we set 31 January 2009 as the deadline, so that we have
> sufficient time to prepare a paper summarizing the input. However, as
> always, we will be flexible in this regard.
> 
> Of course, we also welcome contributions in any other format.
> 
> Best regards
> Markus
> 
> jeanette
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan 30 01:02:20 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A0A1@mfp01.IFLA.lan>
References: <893958C64F444D018B946B4E537D1B98@IAN> <4980CC4E.4010601@skynet.be> <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A0A1@mfp01.IFLA.lan>
Message-ID: <498297EC.9090602@itforchange.net>

 > [SNIP]: "It's interesting to see Google stepping up into the role of 
a proactive net-neutrality watchdog."

Google as the (overwhelmingly) principal player in the content/ 
application layer is a great ally to ensure 'openness' in the 
infrastructural/ transport layer.... However, we will need other actors 
to develop tools that could reverse engineer and unravel the gates and 
walls that Google builds in its content/ application layer - how it 
priortises and presents search results, how does it separate commercial 
from non-commercial information, how it deals  with privacy  in its 
customization methods etc etc.... 

Did I hear Google say revealing some of it will compromise its 
commercial interests, and the secrecy or 'non-openness' of such 
information constitutes  legitimate commercial secrets.  In that case as 
traffic management practices become increasingly more sophisticated  
would telecoms at some stage not by the same logic be able to claim 
secrecy of these traffic-shaping practices as legitimate commercial 
secrets. Would then prying into them considered illegal ??  Yes, 
telecoms need to make full disclosure statements, but so do Google. Good 
though till we can use Google's muscle for helping the cause of an 'open 
Internet'.

Not being cynical here, just the strong parallel with issues we have, or 
will soon have, with Google automatically came to my mind.  Also it 
makes the point that while it is important to seek out tactical and 
strategic alliances, we still may need to look at evolving globally 
applicable public policy principles in the area of IG.

 Parminder





Stuart Hamilton wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> I thought this was interesting in light of recent discussions on congestion management etc.
>
> New Google Tools Determine if Your ISP Is Blocking BitTorrent
> http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/new-google-tool.html
>
> [SNIP]: "It's interesting to see Google stepping up into the role of a proactive net-neutrality watchdog."
>
> Stuart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'Ralf Bendrath'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>
> Well, nowadays, it would seem to me that there is a difference of scale 
> and a difference of degree.
>
> If one bloke once picked another´s apple years and years ago, it doesn't 
> mean that the whole trade in apples can now be regulated by the shipping 
> companies.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> CW
>
> ------------------------
>
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>   
>> Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
>> currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
>> effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
>> traffic.
>>
>> Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
>> the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>> PO Box 429
>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>> Australia
>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>> www.ianpeter.com
>>
>>
>> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
>> From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
>> To: internet-history at postel.org
>> Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
>>
>> Mathias,
>>
>> Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
>> customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
>> algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
>> field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
>> next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
>> and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators. 
>> I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
>> figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
>> figure it out, too.
>>
>> 23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
>>> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>>>
>>> Ginger Paque schrieb:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
>>> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
>>> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
>>> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
>>> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
>>> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
>>> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
>>>
>>> Good read on this:
>>> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
>>> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
>>> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
>>> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
>>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
>>>
>>> Ralf
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>     
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>   
>>     
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090130/2de0af77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jan 30 02:43:19 2009
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:13:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
Message-ID: <4982AF97.5070606@itforchange.net>


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."(though the report 
has been criticised by UK opposition for 'not doing enough!!')...

regards,
Guru


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7858498.stm

Broadband 'in every home by 2012'

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham outlines the report's interim findings

All UK homes should have access to broadband and faster download speeds 
by 2012, the government has said.

An interim report on the UK's digital future also looked at plans for 
public service broadcasting.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said digital technology was as important 
today as "roads, bridges and trains were in the 20th Century".

But the Conservatives said the report promised "no new action". The Lib 
Dems said it was a "complete damp squib".

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham told MPs it would help Britain secure a 
competitive low carbon economy in the next five to 10 years, adding the 
country "led the world in content creation".
   
Every aspect of our lives... will be dependent on the services that the 
digital network provides
Gordon Brown

The report called for everyone in the UK to have access to a broadband 
speed of up to two megabits per second (Mbps).

This would make internet connections capable of handling much more video 
and sites that offer greater interactivity.

By the time of the final report, the government will know whether 
internet service providers (ISPs) can build next generation networks 
themselves or if government help will be needed.

Parental control

Mr Burnham said that he wanted to ensure public services online were 
accessible to the widest range of people and wanted to "give parents the 
information and tools to protect [their] children from inappropriate 
content".

But opposition politicians said they were disappointed in the report.

   
READ THE FULL INTERIM REPORT

Digital Britain interim report(2MB)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need 
to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader here

At a glance: Digital Britain
Shadow culture minister Jeremy Hunt told BBC News it consisted of little 
more than promises to make more reports.

"We're very disappointed. We thought the report was going to contain a 
strategy. David Cameron has said the majority of the population should 
have access to high-speed broadband in five years. Instead they [the 
government] have announced another review.

*"In France and Germany they are laying fibre, in Japan they already 
have it. In Britain the average broadband speed is 3.6Mbps so what he 
[Andy Burnham] is talking about is getting half the current speed," he 
added.
*
"We're the second largest exporter of music and television and third for 
film. But when it comes to the distribution of digital content, we're 
lagging".

The report also looked at the issue of internet piracy. Mr Burnham said 
the government would look at setting up a new digital rights agency and 
wanted to introduce legislation requiring internet service providers to 
notify illegal file-sharers directly about their activity.

Kashvi Shah uses pay-as-you-surf 100Mbps broadband at her home in west 
London
Mr Burnham also examined the role Channel 4 would play in the future of 
public service broadcasting.

"The report identifies news at local, regional and national level and 
children's programming as amongst the key priorities," he said.

"The BBC - as an enabling force is central to this - strong and secure 
in its own future, working in partnership with others to deliver these 
objectives.

"We will also explore how we can establish a sustainable public service 
organisation which offers scale and reach alongside the BBC, building on 
the strength of Channel 4."

Communications watchdog Ofcom last week warned Channel 4 faced a bleak 
future unless a deal could be reached.

The Liberal Democrats said the minister had failed to live up to his 
promises.

Speaking to the BBC, the Lib Dem's culture, media and sport spokesman, 
Don Foster, said the report was "bitterly disappointing".

"In September, the minister said... 'Early in the New Year, Ofcom can 
conclude its review and the government can announce decisions and the 
process to implement those decisions'. But we have no decision," he said.

"He failed to rule out top slicing. He welcomed discussion between ITV 
and the BBC, between Channel 4 and the BBC, but no decision.

"We've spent lots of money on reviews, but all we now have is a strategy 
group, an umbrella body, a delivery group, a rights agency, a 
exploratory review, a digital champion and an expert task force.

"This report has been a complete damp squib."

Future radio
*The report also examined the future of radio. The culture secretary 
said digital audio broadcasting (DAB) will become the "primary 
distribution network", potentially giving notice for the end of 
traditional FM analogue radio.
*
The government will also look at how the digital switch-over scheme - 
introduced for TV - could be expanded to help the radio transition.

The prime minister, speaking at the New Local Government Network in 
central London, said that the digital economy would play a crucial part 
in lifting Britain out of recession.

"Today we have an interim report from Lord Carter setting out the scale 
of our ambition to compete in the digital economy and that's a market 
worth about £50bn a year," he said.

"It affects every community in our country who are looking for the best 
digital infrastructure, access to broadband, that we can offer them.
*
"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."*

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090130/21015b8a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jan 30 03:28:26 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:28:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
In-Reply-To: <4982AF97.5070606@itforchange.net>
References: <4982AF97.5070606@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <jLG6UxtqorgJFAau@perry.co.uk>

In message <4982AF97.5070606 at itforchange.net>, at 13:13:19 on Fri, 30 
Jan 2009, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> 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
-- 
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  Fri Jan 30 05:06:31 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:06:31 +1100
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
Message-ID: <D59A5001F66C40A89DFDEDE003FAC7D9@IAN>

One thing that needs to be added -

The announcement of the new Appeals Team has occurred midway through the MAG
Nomcom process - and it has been pointed out to the co-ordinators that this
could raise complexities in the event of an appeal, particularly since some
of the members of the new appeals team are also MAG candidates.

The easiest way to deal with this is to start the term of the new Appeals
Team 48 hours after the current Nomcom announces its selections, to allow
for any appeal against their work. That would make the term of the new
Appeals Team commencing on or about February 16, with the old team remaining
in place until then.


Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: 27 January 2009 19:13
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: [governance] New Appeals Team
> 
> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and
> Anriette
> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
> 
> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie
> Currie,
> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
> behalf.
> 
> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal
> appeals,
> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and
> wise
> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
> 
> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see
> this
> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone involved!
> 
> 
> 
> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
> >
> > I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
> > Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
> > consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
> > any particular order):
> >
> > * Jeanette Hofmann
> > * Adam Peake
> > * Carlos Alfonso
> > * Ken Lohento
> > * Fouad Bajwa
> >
> > Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
> > ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
> > choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
> > committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 05:16:30 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:16:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
In-Reply-To: <D59A5001F66C40A89DFDEDE003FAC7D9@IAN>
References: <547FC974CDEE4CCFBD7731F9546B0E8D@IAN>
	 <D59A5001F66C40A89DFDEDE003FAC7D9@IAN>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0901300216if5b42cdmd55306a0a039fe9a@mail.gmail.com>

works for me!

--
McTim


On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> One thing that needs to be added -
>
> The announcement of the new Appeals Team has occurred midway through the MAG
> Nomcom process - and it has been pointed out to the co-ordinators that this
> could raise complexities in the event of an appeal, particularly since some
> of the members of the new appeals team are also MAG candidates.
>
> The easiest way to deal with this is to start the term of the new Appeals
> Team 48 hours after the current Nomcom announces its selections, to allow
> for any appeal against their work. That would make the term of the new
> Appeals Team commencing on or about February 16, with the old team remaining
> in place until then.
>
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>> Sent: 27 January 2009 19:13
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
>> Subject: RE: [governance] New Appeals Team
>>
>> Firstly thank you particularly to Jeremy and all the other members of the
>> Appeals Nomcom -  Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Thomas Lowenhaupt and
>> Anriette
>> Esterhuysen, for your work on our behalf in selecting this team.
>>
>> Secondly, thanks to our outgoing Appeals Team - Rishi Chawla, Willie
>> Currie,
>> Avri Doria, Nnenna Nwaknma and Jeremy Shtern for their service on our
>> behalf.
>>
>> And thirdly, thanks to the new appeals team, as announced below by Jeremy,
>> for their willingness to volunteer and perform this important function.
>> Although the last Appeals Team did not have to deal with any formal
>> appeals,
>> and I would wish the same on the new team, it is comforting to know that
>> should such a circumstance arise we have such an excellent, skilled and
>> wise
>> group who will be able to deal with such issues.
>>
>> IGC is totally reliant on volunteer effort, and it is heartening to see so
>> many people willing to assist in a range of capacities to help us on our
>> way. As a coordinator, I am greatly heartened and encouraged when I see
>> this
>> willingness to participate and assist. It bodes well for our future.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved!
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: 27 January 2009 12:17
>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > Subject: [governance] New Appeals Team
>> >
>> > I have been coordinating the process of selection of a new Appeals
>> > Team for the IGC.  The nominating committee has now reached a
>> > consensus around this panel for the new Appeals Team (not listed in
>> > any particular order):
>> >
>> > * Jeanette Hofmann
>> > * Adam Peake
>> > * Carlos Alfonso
>> > * Ken Lohento
>> > * Fouad Bajwa
>> >
>> > Thank you to all of the other candidates who put their names forward,
>> > ensuring that we had a diverse and well-qualified slate of nominees to
>> > choose from.  Thank you also to my colleauges on the nominating
>> > committee and to the coordinators for their patience.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan 30 23:09:50 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:39:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
In-Reply-To: <jLG6UxtqorgJFAau@perry.co.uk>
References: <4982AF97.5070606@itforchange.net> <jLG6UxtqorgJFAau@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net>

>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 <guru at itforchange.net> 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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Jan 31 04:57:09 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:57:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
In-Reply-To: <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net>
References: <4982AF97.5070606@itforchange.net> <jLG6UxtqorgJFAau@perry.co.uk>
 <4983CF0E.2000309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <IZwQw4B1BChJFAnT@perry.co.uk>

In message <4983CF0E.2000309 at itforchange.net>, at 09:39:50 on Sat, 31
Jan 2009, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>>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' .

In Europe we have a concept called "Universal Service", which in
telecoms currently only applies to "plain old telephone service". The
idea is that you should not discriminate between people who live in
towns, and those who live 10km from the nearest road, by refusing to
supply a telephone to the latter (or by charging them more).

The (big majority of) people who are "easy to reach" pay a little
'extra' (bundled often invisibly in their bills) to provide a subsidy to
the telco to build out to everyone who is "difficult to reach" - or as
the report below expresses it, living in "not-spots".

The UK initiative reported upon this week is simply to extend the idea
from POTS to Broadband, and only works financially when there's a ratio
of at least 90% good coverage to 10% "not spots".

<http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/S4_digital_britain_interi
mreportjan09.pdf.
-- 
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