From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Fri Jul 31 18:05:41 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:05:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype
In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC>
References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC>
Message-ID: <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com>

Michael:
I agree.   Seems like a tall order to take private property and declare it
public goods unless compensation is agreed. But that aside, but I can tell
you losing Skype would have a severe impact on many communities of interest,
especially several civil society ones, that I'm attached

Carlton Samuels

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a
> service to be left to the market...
>
> I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or
> at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the
> next Internet Governance Forum...
>
> How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global
> interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival?
>
> MBG
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM
> *To:* ip
> *Subject:* [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype
>  Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *Bill Daul <bdaul at pacbell.net>
> *Date: *July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT
> *To: *Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> *Subject: **Shock threat to shut Skype*
>
>  Asher MosesJuly 31, 2009 - 1:38PM
>
> eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with
> the founders of the internet telephony service.
>
> The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users
> around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends
> and far-flung relatives.
>
> A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried about
> 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world’s largest
> provider of cross-border voice communications.
>
> The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas
> Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not
> include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers
> the software.
>
> <..>
>
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-20090731-e3qe.html
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bill Daul*
>
> Chief Collaboration Officer
> *NextNow Collaboratory*:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on
> transforming the present
>
> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow
> http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog
> http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog
>
> ==================================
>
> "Play with boundaries, not within."
>
>  --
>
> *Bill Daul*
>
> Chief Collaboration Officer
> *NextNow Collaboratory*:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on
> transforming the present
>
> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow
> http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog
> http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog
>
> ==================================
>
> "Play with boundaries, not within."
>
>
>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> <http://www.listbox.com>
> !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442!
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090731/42127294/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 baptista at publicroot.org  Fri Jul 31 22:37:04 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:37:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype
In-Reply-To: <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC>
	 <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20907311937s3e173676m3e62377f74f7c17a@mail.gmail.com>

The way I see it skype will be replaced by something else if it's that
important. I think they are being silly. It's all about money.

As I skype user I can tell you they have been nice to us this last month.
all skype users got unlimited calls world wide to test out a service for
unlimited global calling for only 9.00 per month. Maybe thats their way of
saying good bye.

In any case - skype will be a loss. I rarely use it except for some people.
never use it for global calling. I like land lines. but it has been helpful
from time to time and i was considering even putting it on my blog.

regards
joe

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Carlton Samuels <
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

> Michael:
> I agree.   Seems like a tall order to take private property and declare it
> public goods unless compensation is agreed. But that aside, but I can tell
> you losing Skype would have a severe impact on many communities of interest,
> especially several civil society ones, that I'm attached
>
> Carlton Samuels
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a
>> service to be left to the market...
>>
>> I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or
>> at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the
>> next Internet Governance Forum...
>>
>> How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global
>> interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival?
>>
>> MBG
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM
>> *To:* ip
>> *Subject:* [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype
>>  Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>  *From: *Bill Daul <bdaul at pacbell.net>
>> *Date: *July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT
>> *To: *Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
>> *Subject: **Shock threat to shut Skype*
>>
>>  Asher MosesJuly 31, 2009 - 1:38PM
>>
>> eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with
>> the founders of the internet telephony service.
>>
>> The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users
>> around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends
>> and far-flung relatives.
>>
>> A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried
>> about 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world’s
>> largest provider of cross-border voice communications.
>>
>> The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas
>> Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not
>> include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers
>> the software.
>>
>> <..>
>>
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-20090731-e3qe.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Bill Daul*
>>
>> Chief Collaboration Officer
>> *NextNow Collaboratory*:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on
>> transforming the present
>>
>> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow
>> http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog
>> http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog
>>
>> ==================================
>>
>> "Play with boundaries, not within."
>>
>>  --
>>
>> *Bill Daul*
>>
>> Chief Collaboration Officer
>> *NextNow Collaboratory*:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on
>> transforming the present
>>
>> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow
>> http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog
>> http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog
>>
>> ==================================
>>
>> "Play with boundaries, not within."
>>
>>
>>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> <http://www.listbox.com>
>> !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442!
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090731/6f86a098/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 rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 07:03:15 2009
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:03:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com> <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58762b1a0907020403l57211108ta33507ce9827d426@mail.gmail.com>

My take on the whole thing is here:
http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/green-dam-is-breachednow-what.html

Rebecca

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/
>



-- 
Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong
Kong

UK: +44-7759-863406
USA: +1-617-939-3493
HK: +852-6334-8843
Mainland China: +86-13710820364

E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090702/cfccac6e/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jul  2 13:24:41 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
Message-ID: <161601.47895.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Prior Restraint* is the leading cause of ignorance and lack of progress in International, National, Local, home and personal activity. It infects business, creativity, human rights and peace. 
 
When doing business, may I say especially in Asia, one must not take a statement of restriction as meaning more or less than, "the burden is on you, to show the benefits of your desired action or our inaction".  Public statements and "face" are like the western politicians' "lets float it out there and see what happens" -- while maintaining deniability.
 
Of course what do I know?
 
*I use this term in a manner related to the human condition and will.  The "I can't" or the "I am not good enough" syndromes. But mostly it is that thought prior to taking action that reviews "will it work, is it worth it, can it be done and worst of all "what if I fail?"
Legally: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html
Philosophically: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=5F4DB6E45D154BDC949C07A437CFE95D?contentType=Book&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1757266
Please note that as a avid copywriter I respect the money end of this link


--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] China backs down on filter?
To: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 11:03 AM


My take on the whole thing is here: 
http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/green-dam-is-breachednow-what.html

Rebecca


On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/



-- 
Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong

UK: +44-7759-863406
USA: +1-617-939-3493
HK: +852-6334-8843
Mainland China: +86-13710820364

E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090702/c705af0a/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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Fri Jul  3 04:05:46 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] looking for Eritrean contacts with knowledge on
 internet censorship
Message-ID: <437288.97668.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Hi all,

A friend of mine is interested in contacting people in Eritrea to get a handle on internet censorship in the country. It's preferable to get contacts within the country that are knowledgeable on these issues, but second best is people with a knowledge of the issues in the country.

Any contacts can be forwarded to me directly and I'll pass them on and they'll get in touch.

My friend is working as a consultant for Sesawe - see https://www.sesawe.net/.

Cheers
David

 ---------


David Goldstein


email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/
http://goldsteinreport.com/


phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home
mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
COOGEE NSW 2034
AUSTRALIA


"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



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Jul  3 06:48:44 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:48:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] new gTLD consultation
Message-ID: <B27C8E41-02F0-461C-BBE9-76944A02BA76@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

GNSO staff have asked me to call this to people's attention.  There  
will be a New gTLDs global outreach and consultation event in London  
on 15 July 2009 at the Royal Institute of British Architects, 66  
Portland Place, London, W1B 1AD. It's free and open to anyone  
interested in knowing more about the program, sharing views, etc. http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/

Best,

Bill


***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090703/ca6b45b7/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  Fri Jul  3 07:41:54 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:41:54 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings
In-Reply-To: <fe3467ff0907011138k752bb955o1d307bed15aa2f02@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fe3467ff0907011138k752bb955o1d307bed15aa2f02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70907030441n5e704392jce4142825b5352ed@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Peña <patipena at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Subject: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings
To: apc.forum at lists.apc.org


hello all
just to share you the situation that actually is happening in Honduras
after a military strike last sunday ...
of course the latinamerican and international reject of the situation
(including NU Gral Asambley)
but the internal situation is very complicated for people, and what is
happening  is again people,  civil society organizations, independient
and community media (radios especially) and women organizations are
using use emails, your tube and others social networking to  break the
internal informative censorship that has been imposed by the "new"
authorities ..
even when in the capital Tegucigalpa, they have been suffering of lack
of energy and therefore of Internet conectitvity
I share with you some material from latinamerican independient media
that are broacasting any of this contributions

Special from Radio Internacional Feminista - FIRE, Costa Rica
http://www.fire.or.cr/

News agency Pulsar
http://www.agenciapulsar.org/coberturas_det2.php?id=65

Images, protests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NOmCMUqKXc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZih_qMUPM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Alrvpjy0fM

Sorry because all of these is in spanish

regards
patricia


--
Patricia Peña M.
email: patipena at gmail.com

My networks groups
::Equipo Conexión Social // Radio Tierra, Santiago Chile ::
Promoviendo el libre acceso a las TICs y conocimiento
www.conexionsocial.cl
www.radiotierra.cl
:: Grupo de Trabajo Mujeres en Conexión - Chile
http://www.mujeresenconexion.org
::Comunidad LIDERA (Liderazgos para las Democracias, Bolivia-Perú-Chile)
http://www.proyectolidera.org
::red Ciudadanía Digital- Chile::
http://www.ciudadaniadigital.cl


=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and
institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy,
equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and
create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum




-- 

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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jul  4 13:16:33 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social
 networkings
Message-ID: <111690.24061.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Please explain some wonderments in your post:
 
>From who to who --- no need for specifics but the general concept of who is writing.
 
I am not concerned if you think this rude; So I ask: Your name is neither norte nor sud American, neither hispanic nor amerindian.  Please explain your connection.
 
Why the bent on feminism in these links?  Not a good or bad concept just distinct in that the population of Honduras is very equal split.  The protestors via camera are about 80 men. The talking heads about 80 percent women.
 
I am also missing an age spread -- almost all middle aged. 30-50.
 
I am not reading any great distinction between what is and what should be. What exactly do the protestors want?
 
 
references: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/XX.html  just for stats.
Historical cause of conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8120161.stm clearly a power struggle with both sides screwing the constitution and democracy.
 
Blame it on free trade: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/03/09/cafta90days.pdf
not really but ----  that is how "watch" makes its contributions.
 
Just go down about 4-5 paragraphs in this article - I ain't saying but it seems like maybe the Holy See runs this  country; http://www.anglicanjournal.com/pwrdf/049/article/carey-lends-political-clout/?cHash=7dfc2aab5d
 
 
 
--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 11:41 AM


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Peña <patipena at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Subject: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings
To: apc.forum at lists.apc.org


hello all
just to share you the situation that actually is happening in Honduras
after a military strike last sunday ...
of course the latinamerican and international reject of the situation
(including NU Gral Asambley)
but the internal situation is very complicated for people, and what is
happening  is again people,  civil society organizations, independient
and community media (radios especially) and women organizations are
using use emails, your tube and others social networking to  break the
internal informative censorship that has been imposed by the "new"
authorities ..
even when in the capital Tegucigalpa, they have been suffering of lack
of energy and therefore of Internet conectitvity
I share with you some material from latinamerican independient media
that are broacasting any of this contributions

Special from Radio Internacional Feminista - FIRE, Costa Rica
http://www.fire.or.cr/

News agency Pulsar
http://www.agenciapulsar.org/coberturas_det2.php?id=65

Images, protests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NOmCMUqKXc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZih_qMUPM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Alrvpjy0fM

Sorry because all of these is in spanish

regards
patricia


--
Patricia Peña M.
email: patipena at gmail.com

My networks groups
::Equipo Conexión Social // Radio Tierra, Santiago Chile ::
Promoviendo el libre acceso a las TICs y conocimiento
www.conexionsocial.cl
www.radiotierra.cl
:: Grupo de Trabajo Mujeres en Conexión - Chile
http://www.mujeresenconexion.org
::Comunidad LIDERA (Liderazgos para las Democracias, Bolivia-Perú-Chile)
http://www.proyectolidera.org
::red Ciudadanía Digital- Chile::
http://www.ciudadaniadigital.cl


=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and
institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy,
equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and
create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum




-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090704/0697566a/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  Sat Jul  4 15:11:03 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:11:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
Message-ID: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

All international observers,
     Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
international exposure.
     Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
a little and read the English translation.  THANK YOU!!!

SPANISH

> Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
> Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular
> Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio.
> En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
> Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
> La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
> los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional.
> Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
> Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo
>  correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21!
> Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
> Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.

____________________________________________________________

ENGLISH

CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org
     Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
praise.
     In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the
National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
     As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
     The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
“coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental
characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
new Constitutional President.
     Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
to its citizens deposing its President.
     There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be
shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. 
Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
     God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
the Honduran family to remain united.
     We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
State Senator, and your President.
     We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.


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

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


From ronda.netizen at gmail.com  Sat Jul  4 16:02:40 2009
From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 16:02:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for 
Message-ID: <ecb9aa080907041302q3f8278b4s691bee46d290385a@mail.gmail.com>

The post by Karl E Peters is not an appropriate post for this list on
Internet governance.

It is not only a problem that the President of a country is hijacked out of
the country by force, but now we see a supposed justification for this
action on a mailing list about a totally unrelated topic. I am sure that
those who want to find some means of having such debate can find related
lists, but this is not such a list. I hope that the subject matter of this
list will be respected. Thanks. Ronda


On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Karl E. Peters <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:

> All international observers,
>     Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
> English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
> there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
> international exposure.
>    <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
>



-- 
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090704/5302083e/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul  5 00:55:37 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for
Message-ID: <161543.56670.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Mia Culpa,
 
Little to do with Internet Governance.
 
Eric

--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Ronda Hauben <ronda.netizen at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ronda Hauben <ronda.netizen at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>
Cc: "ronda hauben" <ronda.netizen at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 8:02 PM



The post by Karl E Peters is not an appropriate post for this list on Internet governance.
 
It is not only a problem that the President of a country is hijacked out of the country by force, but now we see a supposed justification for this action on a mailing list about a totally unrelated topic. I am sure that those who want to find some means of having such debate can find related lists, but this is not such a list. I hope that the subject matter of this list will be respected. Thanks. Ronda

 
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Karl E. Peters <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:

All international observers,
    Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
international exposure.
   <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




-- 
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090704/ac6034e3/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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jul  5 05:03:32 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:03:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
Message-ID: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is  
this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.   
It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in  
the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the  
list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out  
there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on  
the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary  
discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some  
focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple  
paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather  
variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm  
synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would  
think this is an important thing to do.

Comments on the review process so far are at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
(Great URL, I love the website ;-)

The questions we are asked to address are:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in  
the Tunis Agenda?
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?  
Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?  
Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for  
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group  
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year  
mandate, and why/why not?
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements  
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and  
processes?
7. Do you have any other comments?

Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?

Best,

Bill

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090705/be6fd7cd/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 Jul  5 06:49:54 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:49:54 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <C676C272.3B0D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Bill,

I¹m moving house over the next ten days and will  not be able to participate
much if at all. However,

Our three most recent submissions to IGF on this particular subject can be
found at

http://www.igcaucus.org/statements

(One carries the subject Role of IGF)

Many of us also made individual submissions which can be found at the url
you mention below. I note there is no IGC statement as such in this latest
round, so it would be nice I guess even if we have nothing new to say.

I don¹t think our answers will have changed much since our last submissions
on this subject. But if there are substantive new things we want to say and
can agree to, by all means lets express them here and see if there is
anything new to add to this.











On 5/07/09 7:03 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this
> still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.  It's been
> quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC
> discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years
> ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there.  For example, do we
> not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15
> deadline?  We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people
> indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of
> more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given
> the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think
> this is an important thing to do.
> 
> Comments on the review process so far are at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformna
> me=FormalConsult032009ListView
> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
> 
> The questions we are asked to address are:
> 
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the
> Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it
> impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as
> a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it,
> including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG),
> Secretariat and open consultations?
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and
> why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would
> you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
> 
> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
>  
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake 
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
> ***********************************************************
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090705/93e8572c/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 07:54:59 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:24:59 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>

Hi everyone,
I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to 
propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach 
consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone?

Best,
Ginger

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is 
> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late. 
>  It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are 
> in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established 
> the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues 
> out there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement 
> on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary 
> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some 
> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple 
> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather 
> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm 
> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would 
> think this is an important thing to do.  
>
> Comments on the review process so far are at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>
> The questions we are asked to address are:
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
> the Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
> mandate, and why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
> processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake  
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html 
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
> ***********************************************************
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 08:18:30 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:48:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907060518u786d011dp7c13437e0b177a8c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger,

I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a
draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if
someone proposes a draft.

Shiva.



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to
> propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach
> consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone?
>
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> William Drake wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
>> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.  It's
>> been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC
>> discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven
>> years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there.  For
>> example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by
>> the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and
>> people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a
>> statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors
>> renewal.  Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat
>> (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments,
>> one would think this is an important thing to do.
>> Comments on the review process so far are at
>>
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>>
>> The questions we are asked to address are:
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the
>> Tunis Agenda?
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it
>> impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted
>> as a catalyst for change?
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it,
>> including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG),
>> Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF
>> past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake  Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>  Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch <mailto:
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html <
>> http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090706/ed8960a8/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  Mon Jul  6 10:22:13 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:22:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>

      If I might add one further question to the very interesting  
questions of Mr. Drake;

      To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet  
as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies  
and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic  
internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on  
the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity  
outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely  
ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is  
this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear  
answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than  
answers to all the other questions combined.
      Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question  
but would welcome thought out response!

-Karl E. Peters
kpeters at tldainc.org

Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:

> Hi,
>
> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
> think this is an important thing to do.
>
> Comments on the review process so far are at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>
> The questions we are asked to address are:
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
> the Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
> mandate, and why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************



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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Jul  6 10:32:42 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:32:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] FYI
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>
 <fecfce260907060518u786d011dp7c13437e0b177a8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871929D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi
 
for people who are interested in lessons from history: Here is a very personal piece where I remember Leipzig 1989 where the "candle revolution" startet to bring the Berlin wall down and to end the cold war. 
 
BTW, in one part of the interview I compare the 1989 "bottom up" movement in East Germany and the "round tables" where policy was developed in 1989 and 1990 with the innovative foms we are exploring now with Internet Governance, its principle of multistakeholderism and the open and transparent biottom up policy development processes. :-))))
 
Wolfgang
 
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_806_Rembering_A_Revolution.mp3/view

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 10:48:50 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:18:50 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch> <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>
Message-ID: <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com>

IG issues are not restricted, except that they should be coherent and 
follow general rules of netiquette. (This is the Internet governance 
caucus list. IGF policy should be confirmed with the IGF Secretariat).

I assume by "dumb" silence, you mean mute. Certainly silence is 
preferable to meaningless posts for the sake of posting.

My personal experience is that people answer posts that interest and 
motivate them. I have found that if I am trying to push a non-essential 
or untimely issue, people do not answer me. There is certainly no 
obligation (or even expectation) for anyone to answer any post. If some 
people get more response than others, I assume it is because they are 
posting information and discussions that are more relevant to the list.

Regards,
Ginger

kpeters at tldainc.org wrote:
>      If I might add one further question to the very interesting 
> questions of Mr. Drake;
>
>      To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet as 
> it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies and 
> does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic 
> internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on 
> the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity 
> outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely 
> ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is 
> this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear 
> answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than 
> answers to all the other questions combined.
>      Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question 
> but would welcome thought out response!
>
> -Karl E. Peters
> kpeters at tldainc.org
>
> Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
>> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
>> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
>> think this is an important thing to do.
>>
>> Comments on the review process so far are at
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView 
>>
>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>>
>> The questions we are asked to address are:
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  6 10:52:15 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:52:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907060518u786d011dp7c13437e0b177a8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>,<fecfce260907060518u786d011dp7c13437e0b177a8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Likewise I can't start a draft, but promise to criticize whoever does, I mean offer constructive suggestions for refinement : )
________________________________________
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [isolatedn at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:18 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list

Hello Ginger,

I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if someone proposes a draft.

Shiva.



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone?

Best,
Ginger

William Drake wrote:
Hi,

Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.  It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think this is an important thing to do.
Comments on the review process so far are at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
(Great URL, I love the website ;-)

The questions we are asked to address are:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
7. Do you have any other comments?

Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?

Best,

Bill

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 11:01:41 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:31:41 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>,<fecfce260907060518u786d011dp7c13437e0b177a8c@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A5211D5.1020606@gmail.com>

Thanks, Lee. Perhaps you or others could each just answer one of the 7 
questions pointed out by Bill Drake (repeated here for your reference) 
or even address one issue of their preference to be included in a group 
statement.

Bill? Anyone?
The questions we are asked to address are:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
7. Do you have any other comments?



Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Likewise I can't start a draft, but promise to criticize whoever does, I mean offer constructive suggestions for refinement : )
> ________________________________________
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:18 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Cc: William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list
>
> Hello Ginger,
>
> I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if someone proposes a draft.
>
> Shiva.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone?
>
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.  It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think this is an important thing to do.
> Comments on the review process so far are at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>
> The questions we are asked to address are:
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake  Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  6 15:32:00 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:32:00 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>
Message-ID: <C6788E50.3B94%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Karl,

Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree
this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this
list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it should
head.

But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an
incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of
internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale
governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but
how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time...




On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:

>       If I might add one further question to the very interesting
> questions of Mr. Drake;
> 
>       To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet
> as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies
> and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic
> internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on
> the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity
> outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely
> ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is
> this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear
> answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than
> answers to all the other questions combined.
>       Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question
> but would welcome thought out response!
> 
> -Karl E. Peters
> kpeters at tldainc.org
> 
> Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
>> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
>> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
>> think this is an important thing to do.
>> 
>> Comments on the review process so far are at
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn
>> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView
>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>> 
>> The questions we are asked to address are:
>> 
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>> 
>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  6 15:59:53 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:59:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <C6788E50.3B94%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6788E50.3B94%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <20090706145953.voffqvrr40k4w0gs@www.tldainc.org>

Thank you,
      With great appreciation for your candor and your reasoning for  
why things as they are, there is hope that perhaps there is a future  
beyond ICANN for such a group as this! As you already know, I tend to  
think way outside the ICANN "box" already, perhaps a bit too early!  
But, however, I believe it is with its value. ANY time I might lend  
some perspective on things from outside the box in a constructive way,  
I will do so. Otherwise I will try to stay out of the way of the ICANN  
march.
      Even for those dedicated to ICANN for whatever expensive and  
innefficien reason they may have, there is a great benefit in knowing  
how the rest of the world sees them and how it plans to work around  
ICANN unless it learns to complete, not just for DoC handouts of power  
and authority, but in a real marketplace and purely market based roots  
again spring up, this time with more zeal and hope than before. ICANN  
must also remember its very sad history of running roughshod over  
those it does not benefit from and favoring those that jump through  
its hoops and pay its fees. I speak, of course, of the .Biz issue of  
several years ago.
      Thanks again for a voice of candor and reason in this group! It  
was most refreshing AND HOPEFUL...
-Karl E. Peters


Quoting Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:

> Hi Karl,
>
> Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree
> this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this
> list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it should
> head.
>
> But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an
> incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of
> internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale
> governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but
> how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time...
>
>
>
>
> On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
>
>>       If I might add one further question to the very interesting
>> questions of Mr. Drake;
>>
>>       To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet
>> as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies
>> and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic
>> internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on
>> the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity
>> outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely
>> ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is
>> this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear
>> answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than
>> answers to all the other questions combined.
>>       Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question
>> but would welcome thought out response!
>>
>> -Karl E. Peters
>> kpeters at tldainc.org
>>
>> Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
>>> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
>>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
>>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
>>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
>>> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
>>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
>>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
>>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
>>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
>>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
>>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
>>> think this is an important thing to do.
>>>
>>> Comments on the review process so far are at
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn
>>> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView
>>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>>>
>>> The questions we are asked to address are:
>>>
>>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
>>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
>>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
>>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>>> processes?
>>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>   Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Jul  6 16:00:46 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <C6788E50.3B94%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>
	 <C6788E50.3B94%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907061300m51acc45h3b2e785bac9e2d35@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian

One reason why there has been so much focus on ICANN related issues is that
it has been a crucial point of time for ICANN with the new CEO selection
process, review of JPA, the issues related to new gTLDs and the introduction
of IDNs.

The participants of the list have possibly been concerned about what is
happening to and at ICANN as ICANN happens to be very important.

That is possibly the reason for Karl's perception but the observation that
the participants are not interested in issues beyond those in ICANN's
realm is not right.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree
> this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this
> list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it
> should
> head.
>
> But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an
> incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of
> internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale
> governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but
> how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time...
>
>
>
>
> On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
>
> >       If I might add one further question to the very interesting
> > questions of Mr. Drake;
> >
> >       To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet
> > as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies
> > and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic
> > internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on
> > the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity
> > outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely
> > ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is
> > this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear
> > answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than
> > answers to all the other questions combined.
> >       Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question
> > but would welcome thought out response!
> >
> > -Karl E. Peters
> > kpeters at tldainc.org
> >
> > Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
> >> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
> >> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
> >> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
> >> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
> >> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
> >> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
> >> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
> >> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
> >> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
> >> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
> >> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
> >> think this is an important thing to do.
> >>
> >> Comments on the review process so far are at
> >>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn
> >> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView
> >> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
> >>
> >> The questions we are asked to address are:
> >>
> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
> >> the Tunis Agenda?
> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
> >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
> >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
> >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
> >> mandate, and why/why not?
> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> >> processes?
> >> 7. Do you have any other comments?
> >>
> >> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> ***********************************************************
> >> William J. Drake
> >> Senior Associate
> >> Centre for International Governance
> >> Graduate Institute of International and
> >>   Development Studies
> >> Geneva, Switzerland
> >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> >> ***********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/cf8793a0/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 charityg at diplomacy.edu  Mon Jul  6 17:17:18 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:17:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org>
	 <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0907061417w79d963b1qc162efc27599312e@mail.gmail.com>

I feel the same way at times, Ginger. If I have something constructive to
say here, then I comment. If I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I
completely ignore what is being passed around here. I listen and if I feel
that discussion needs my expert knowledge, then I say something. People are
different in many ways and it goes to say that they react differently, too.
I suppose we can always reply "here" the same way the teacher calls out our
name during attendance.  Some do raise their hand silently. But if there is
a need to be more verbal, like what a teacher does, "kindly-please-speak-up"
should be conveyed to the list.

I agree that people tend to ignore topics that they are not conversant with.
That is to be expected. Only a fool tries to pass off himself/herself as an
authority on everything. Consequently, we tend to restrict ourselves to
areas where we have some expertise and therefore, can positively contribute.
It so happen that there are a lot of issues going around ICANN that
basically a lot of people have to comment on.

For instance, you asked, Karl, if our future is tied with ICANN.  I cannot
exactly say that it's "everything" for us but we do know that there are
issues around ICANN that affect us in the Philippines.  We have issues in
ISOC PH that concern the .ph domain dispute and some felt there was some
progress when Twomey was the CEO. We don't know yet how Beckstrom will be
like. But our concern now is having a GAC rep from the Philippines who would
work more for the betterment of Filipinos rather than enjoy the perks of
being a GAC rep. We are trying to nominate a GAC rep to the CICT (Commission
of Information and Comm Technology) and hoping we can resolve our own local
issues. We try to. So  you cannot blame us if we tend to speak up on issues
that can affect us.

Regards,
Charity Gamboa-Embley
ISOC PH IGWG Chairperson


On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> IG issues are not restricted, except that they should be coherent and
> follow general rules of netiquette. (This is the Internet governance caucus
> list. IGF policy should be confirmed with the IGF Secretariat).
>
> I assume by "dumb" silence, you mean mute. Certainly silence is preferable
> to meaningless posts for the sake of posting.
>
> My personal experience is that people answer posts that interest and
> motivate them. I have found that if I am trying to push a non-essential or
> untimely issue, people do not answer me. There is certainly no obligation
> (or even expectation) for anyone to answer any post. If some people get more
> response than others, I assume it is because they are posting information
> and discussions that are more relevant to the list.
>
> Regards,
> Ginger
>
>
> kpeters at tldainc.org wrote:
>
>>     If I might add one further question to the very interesting questions
>> of Mr. Drake;
>>
>>     To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet as it
>> relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies and does it in
>> fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic internet (for better
>> or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on the international scene?
>> Every time I have mentioned internet activity outside of ICANN, this list,
>> as it is very good at doing, completely ignores the subject as if not seeing
>> it will make it not exist. Is this an IGF policy? Is your future tied
>> exclusively to ICANN? Clear answers to these questions will tell a lot more
>> about your future than answers to all the other questions combined.
>>     Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question but
>> would welcome thought out response!
>>
>> -Karl E. Peters
>> kpeters at tldainc.org
>>
>> Quoting William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is
>>> this still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.
>>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in
>>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the
>>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out
>>> there.  For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on
>>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary
>>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some
>>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple
>>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal.  Given the rather
>>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm
>>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would
>>> think this is an important thing to do.
>>>
>>> Comments on the review process so far are at
>>>
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
>>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>>>
>>> The questions we are asked to address are:
>>>
>>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
>>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
>>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
>>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>>> processes?
>>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>  Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> ***********************************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090706/c8c0e6d4/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jul  6 23:35:57 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
Message-ID: <486545.56416.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>


As for me I am just tooo darn shy,

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
I feel the same way at times, Ginger. If I have something constructive to say here, then I comment. If I don't say anything,
 
Let us begin by being easy:
 
The questions we are asked to address are:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
the Tunis Agenda? 
1a.  To date it has communicated to one another its thoughts and impressions as to how it relates to current global governance. It has recently done this on an individual basis. It has maintained open dialogue so that when matters of concern are needed to be addressed we know each other and have ready lines and understandings.
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
2a It has not. If any such embodiment is occurring it is an accident of intellectualism or reflective of the fact that the WSIS principles are in line with general international thought on an issue.
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?
Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government?
Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
3a As for this list: we have complied wholeheartedly with the directives and principles as set forth in 72 found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf   We have engaged in debate and the exchange of information. We have brought to light matters that without a governance disclosure list such as this would not be otherwise well discussed.
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
4a They do not. The participation therein is a reflection of failure.
5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
mandate, and why/why not?
5a Absolutely and unequivicably yes. Regardless of volume of participation the outlet and coordination of open discussions is  more valuable than any existing governing body.
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
processes?
6a Increase outreach. Increase forums on differing levels of communications. Increase the availability of lists that will allow pundits to listen to actually nonfunctioning scenarios and obtain grassroot perceptions of IG.
7. Do you have any other comments?
7a Ours is not the task of evaluation. Ours must always be the task of further inquiry and reflection on the data gained. Openness and relaxed restrictions and more participation and broader visions of reality are and should be our goals. If we are to truly be a list of governance we must always Question Authority.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090706/03e0d1ec/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 orange.fr  Tue Jul  7 05:23:15 2009
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue,  7 Jul 2009 11:23:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
In-Reply-To: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>


What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? 

Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?

Ban this from our List !

Jean-Louis Fullsack



> Message du 04/07/09 21:11
> De : "Karl E. Peters" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
> 
> 
> All international observers,
> Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
> English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
> there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
> international exposure.
> Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
> mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
> a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
> 
> SPANISH
> 
> > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
> > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular
> > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio.
> > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
> > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
> > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
> > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional.
> > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
> > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo
> > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21!
> > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
> > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> ENGLISH
> 
> CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org
> Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
> severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
> and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
> disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
> praise.
> In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
> Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the
> National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
> Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
> As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
> set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
> President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
> The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
> “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental
> characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
> is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
> rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
> on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
> was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
> Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
> Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
> activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
> Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
> succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
> new Constitutional President.
> Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
> defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
> patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
> community. Quite the opposite is true. The OAS, the UN and even the
> United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
> threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
> writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
> benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
> to its citizens deposing its President.
> There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
> convictions on democracy will be sorely tried. Many will begin to
> doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
> terrible pressure of the International community. Still others will be
> shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. 
> Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
> country? Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
> of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
> God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
> facing Honduras. He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
> with intense, sincere faith. Let us pray that the new authorities in
> Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
> remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
> the Honduran family to remain united.
> We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
> many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
> church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
> of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
> State Senator, and your President.
> We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
> Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
> and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
> Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/25a9a4b8/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 correia.rui at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 07:33:37 2009
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:33:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
In-Reply-To: <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>
References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
	 <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0907070433k455af48dgb1cf93cec9121c3e@mail.gmail.com>

Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this
discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different
countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more
attention ...

........ but then again, it has always been that that way ....

Best regrads,

Rui




2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>

>
> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ?
>
> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?
>
> Ban this from our List !
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11
> > De : "Karl E. Peters"
> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
>
> >
> >
> > All international observers,
> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
> > international exposure.
> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
> >
> > SPANISH
> >
> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los
> cristianos en particular
> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos
> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico,
> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días
> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de
> gran elogio.
> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo,
> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión
> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la
> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos
> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como
> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de
> Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este
> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las
> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden
> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba
> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las
> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente
> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus
> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la
> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del
> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente
> Constitucional.
> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales,
> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y
> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional.
> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los
> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de
> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir
> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio
> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente
> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su
> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a
> dudar de que se ha hecho lo
> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad
> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en
> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez
> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora
> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo
> 21!
> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta
> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y
> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia
> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno
> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y
> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que
> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro
> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a
> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar
> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > ENGLISH
> >
> > CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org
> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
> > praise.
> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the
> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
> > “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental
> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
> > new Constitutional President.
> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
> > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
> > to its citizens deposing its President.
> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
> > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be
> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.
> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
> > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
> > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
> > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
> > the Honduran family to remain united.
> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
> > State Senator, and your President.
> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/db136350/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  Tue Jul  7 07:46:34 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:46:34 -0500
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0907070433k455af48dgb1cf93cec9121c3e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
	<32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>
	<ec8caada0907070433k455af48dgb1cf93cec9121c3e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090707064634.0rk53bmz484k4ww4@www.tldainc.org>

Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet  
governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends  
to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed  
that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the  
voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their  
civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was  
wrong.   Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!!
-Karl

Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:

> Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this
> discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different
> countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more
> attention ...
>
> ........ but then again, it has always been that that way ....
>
> Best regrads,
>
> Rui
>
>
>
>
> 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
>
>>
>> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ?
>>
>> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?
>>
>> Ban this from our List !
>>
>> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>>
>>
>> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11
>> > De : "Karl E. Peters"
>> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > Copie à :
>> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > All international observers,
>> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
>> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
>> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
>> > international exposure.
>> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
>> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
>> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
>> >
>> > SPANISH
>> >
>> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
>> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los
>> cristianos en particular
>> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos
>> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico,
>> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días
>> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de
>> gran elogio.
>> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo,
>> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión
>> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la
>> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
>> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos
>> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como
>> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
>> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe de
>> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este
>> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
>> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las
>> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden
>> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba
>> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las
>> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente
>> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus
>> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la
>> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del
>> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente
>> Constitucional.
>> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales,
>> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y
>> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional.
>> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los
>> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de
>> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir
>> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio
>> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente
>> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
>> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su
>> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a
>> dudar de que se ha hecho lo
>> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad
>> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en
>> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez
>> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora
>> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo
>> 21!
>> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta
>> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y
>> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia
>> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno
>> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y
>> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
>> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que
>> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro
>> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a
>> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar
>> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > ENGLISH
>> >
>> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org
>> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
>> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
>> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
>> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
>> > praise.
>> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
>> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the
>> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
>> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
>> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
>> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
>> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
>> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
>> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental
>> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
>> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
>> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
>> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
>> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
>> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
>> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
>> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
>> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
>> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
>> > new Constitutional President.
>> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
>> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
>> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
>> > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
>> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
>> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
>> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
>> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
>> > to its citizens deposing its President.
>> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
>> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
>> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
>> > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be
>> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.
>> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
>> > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
>> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
>> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
>> > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
>> > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
>> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
>> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
>> > the Honduran family to remain united.
>> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
>> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
>> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
>> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
>> > State Senator, and your President.
>> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
>> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
>> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
>> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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
>



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

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


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 07:56:11 2009
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:56:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0907070456q51101beaq9e5a0660238e1d5b@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bill and Karl

I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue
and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent
body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a
tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it
or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm.

regards,

Rui

2009/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Hi,
> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this
> still the listserv of the IGC?  It hasn't been obvious of late.  It's been
> quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC
> discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven
> years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there.  For
> example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by
> the July 15 deadline?  We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and
> people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a
> statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors
> renewal.  Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat
> (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments,
> one would think this is an important thing to do.
>
> Comments on the review process so far are at
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView
> (Great URL, I love the website ;-)
>
> The questions we are asked to address are:
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the
> Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it
> impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted
> as a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it,
> including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG),
> Secretariat and open consultations?
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate,
> and why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would
> you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/b600ce1c/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 10:04:52 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - My take of the story!
Message-ID: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Gentlemen,
 
The Question that is Honduras is appropriate for this list.  In my defense, I was trying to get to the issues of who and why the data we were getting was "off norm". My hope was to get some substance to the obvious answer -- the internet!
 
You folks just tried to get to heartstrings instead of, or skipping over, the internet and its role in a political transition. Just like Somalia, Iraq and Iran and now Afganistan the Honduras are being known about through the net. How that net is governed as a catalyst for understanding is critical to its continued success as an eye opener.*  
 
But lest we forget there are factors we must keep in the forefront. Education is marketing and marketing is education. In developing nations progression as in revolutions the work must be done outside to inside, inside to inside, outside to outside and finally inside to outside. The Honduras are a case for a digital divide. Access to information is a keystone. Those that are savy obtain the information and then relate it to others. So now we must watch and learn how the savy use that technology -- for themselves or for their countrymen.
 
Again I ask; Why the overload of women? Why the dearth of 20 to 30? Where is the highly sophisticated and tech savy Holy See? Just how is the Internet access being used and controlled?

*look at the questions being asked for IGF and how they directly apply to Iran and Honduras.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:


From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" <correia.rui at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:46 AM


Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet  
governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends  
to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed  
that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the  
voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their  
civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was  
wrong.   Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!!
-Karl

Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:

> Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this
> discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different
> countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more
> attention ...
>
> ........ but then again, it has always been that that way ....
>
> Best regrads,
>
> Rui
>
>
>
>
> 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
>
>>
>> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ?
>>
>> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?
>>
>> Ban this from our List !
>>
>> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>>
>>
>> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11
>> > De : "Karl E. Peters"
>> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > Copie à :
>> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > All international observers,
>> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
>> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
>> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
>> > international exposure.
>> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
>> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
>> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
>> >
>> > SPANISH
>> >
>> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
>> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los
>> cristianos en particular
>> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos
>> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico,
>> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días
>> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de
>> gran elogio.
>> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo,
>> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión
>> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la
>> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
>> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos
>> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como
>> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
>> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe de
>> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este
>> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
>> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las
>> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden
>> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba
>> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las
>> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente
>> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus
>> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la
>> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del
>> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente
>> Constitucional.
>> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales,
>> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y
>> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional.
>> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los
>> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de
>> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir
>> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio
>> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente
>> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
>> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su
>> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a
>> dudar de que se ha hecho lo
>> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad
>> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en
>> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez
>> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora
>> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo
>> 21!
>> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta
>> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y
>> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia
>> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno
>> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y
>> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
>> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que
>> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro
>> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a
>> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar
>> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > ENGLISH
>> >
>> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org
>> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
>> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
>> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
>> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
>> > praise.
>> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
>> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the
>> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
>> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
>> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
>> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
>> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
>> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
>> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental
>> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
>> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
>> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
>> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
>> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
>> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
>> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
>> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
>> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
>> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
>> > new Constitutional President.
>> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
>> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
>> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
>> > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
>> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
>> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
>> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
>> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
>> > to its citizens deposing its President.
>> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
>> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
>> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
>> > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be
>> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.
>> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
>> > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
>> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
>> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
>> > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
>> > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
>> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
>> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
>> > the Honduran family to remain united.
>> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
>> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
>> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
>> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
>> > State Senator, and your President.
>> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
>> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
>> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
>> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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
>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/5a242534/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  Tue Jul  7 10:07:11 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:07:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0907070456q51101beaq9e5a0660238e1d5b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC33494D-3C04-402F-AFB7-21B32F22B5A4@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<ec8caada0907070456q51101beaq9e5a0660238e1d5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090707090711.vznsv4f4w0sgo804@www.tldainc.org>

While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it seems  
to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater accountability or  
openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other evasize tactic that  
resulted in no real openness or change in basic operation. It is not  
hard to tell it was spun off from government! :) Personally, I can not  
immagine why anyone outside the US would want to stay under it when  
there is no real reason they should have to. The ccTLDs are certianly  
a factor, but those are owed to every nation regardless of fees paid  
to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn removed in protest of their  
setting up their own root!

In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of  
multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it should  
look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be advocated  
for as many roots as possible and not just administered through ICANN.  
As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by inability to compete  
anywhere their service is not mandated by government, all the work to  
get something through the ICANN labrinth will have been an  
unsatisfying use of time and energies looking back. Whereas if you  
have developed good general guiding principles that perhaps other  
roots would apply, you would give those roots a chance to win consumer  
confidence by willing applicatiuon of your practices and thus put  
pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet the market expectations  
if it wishes to remain a force in the community.

One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more  
divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains  
(TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in  
any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized  
problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that  
was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay them  
hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that time,  
in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the US  
Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE OF  
the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to consult  
further than just the US government about any particular string before  
its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate such research  
with a complete and updated reference of all active TLDs in any  
operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, there is a  
beginning for this underway. We would welcome your members here as  
guests to see what we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth  
of your experiences would help in making determinations and best  
practices of our own.

There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's  
participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready nor  
properly run; but just consider the source and decide for yourself.  
Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some questions. Hard  
questions are welcomed!

Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can  
begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here to  
follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the  
conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who  
wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this list  
too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and share  
your wisdom and experience with us as you can.

-Karl E. Peters
k.peters at tldainc.org

Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:

> Dear Bill and Karl
>
> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue
> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent
> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a
> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it
> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm.
>
> regards,
>
> Rui

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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 10:13:23 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
Message-ID: <486941.56504.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Excellent question and demand for censorship.
 
What does Internet governance say to such demands?  Does it say "Yes my netiquette bans all side talk to do with developing governing models"?  I think this is a portrait of why it must not. Information super highways topple governments and prevoke riots and death -- but that has nothing to do with governance? What Ostrich thinking -- reminiscent of bookburning.
 
What my friends from Africa and the middle east have taught me is clear.  Our discussions and our debate over our role, tells them we give a good damn. It shows that the Internet is not just full of hot air windbags that pontithicate, but has some responsible adults that take responsibility for their actions on the net and their innactions. We incite, but with attitudes like this one we do not take responsibility to help form the new as we have helped tear down the old.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:


From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
Subject: re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:23 AM



What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? 

Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?

Ban this from our List !

Jean-Louis Fullsack



> Message du 04/07/09 21:11
> De : "Karl E. Peters" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
> 
> 
> All international observers,
> Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
> English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
> there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
> international exposure.
> Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
> mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down
> a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
> 
> SPANISH
> 
> > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
> > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular
> > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio.
> > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
> > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
> > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
> > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional.
> > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
> > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo
> > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21!
> > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
> > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> ENGLISH
> 
> CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org
> Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
> severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural,
> and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
> disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
> praise.
> In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
> Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the
> National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the
> Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
> As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
> set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
> President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
> The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
> “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental
> characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
> is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of
> rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based
> on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
> was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
> Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
> Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
> activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the
> Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
> succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
> new Constitutional President.
> Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
> defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
> patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
> community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
> United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
> threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
> writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
> benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led
> to its citizens deposing its President.
> There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
> convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
> doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
> terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be
> shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. 
> Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
> country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
> of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
> God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
> facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him
> with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
> Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
> remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for
> the Honduran family to remain united.
> We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
> many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
> church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber
> of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
> State Senator, and your President.
> We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
> Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations,
> and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
> Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090707/be47a56a/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 10:15:57 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
Message-ID: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Karl,
 
Why was I denied membership?

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:


From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM


While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government! :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn removed in protest of their setting up their own root!

In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the community.

One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to consult further than just the US government about any particular string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate such research with a complete and updated reference of all active TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, there is a beginning for this
 underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your experiences would help in making determinations and best practices of our own.

There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some questions. Hard questions are welcomed!

Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and share your wisdom and experience with us as you can.

-Karl E. Peters
k.peters at tldainc.org

Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:

> Dear Bill and Karl
> 
> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue
> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent
> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a
> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it
> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Rui

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/c4282833/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  Tue Jul  7 10:23:23 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:23:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list
In-Reply-To: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090707092323.t370fmfqqsg0osko@www.tldainc.org>

Eric,
      You were not denied membership. You were misdirected in how to  
apply. I asked David to direct you rather to the application system on  
the website whereby you should be fully included in the system when  
your application is accepted and ID properly sent in AFTER acceptance.  
I know of your interest and am awaiting your application.

-Karl E. Peters

Quoting Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>:

> Karl,
>  
> Why was I denied membership?
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM
>
>
> While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it   
> seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater   
> accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other   
> evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic   
> operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government!   
> :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would   
> want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have   
> to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every   
> nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn  
>  removed in protest of their setting up their own root!
>
> In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of   
> multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it   
> should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be   
> advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered   
> through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by   
> inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by   
> government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth  
>  will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking   
> back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles   
> that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a   
> chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your   
> practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet  
>  the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the   
> community.
>
> One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more   
> divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains   
> (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in   
> any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized   
> problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that   
> was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay   
> them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that  
>  time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the  
>  US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE  
>  OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to   
> consult further than just the US government about any particular   
> string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate   
> such research with a complete and updated reference of all active   
> TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA,   
> there is a beginning for this
>  underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what   
> we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your   
> experiences would help in making determinations and best practices   
> of our own.
>
> There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's   
> participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready   
> nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for   
> yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some   
> questions. Hard questions are welcomed!
>
> Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can   
> begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here   
> to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the   
> conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who   
> wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this   
> list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and   
> share your wisdom and experience with us as you can.
>
> -Karl E. Peters
> k.peters at tldainc.org
>
> Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Bill and Karl
>>
>> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue
>> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent
>> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a
>> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it
>> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rui
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 11:47:32 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC on its list/ICANN governance
Message-ID: <723809.36706.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thank you for the wonderful and expected response.
 
Legalism and sophistry.  These two demons being used by the uneducated in process to deny and exclude as opposed to include and accept.  CEOs and BoDs schtupeing* down to membership rolls in order to work political security for their club.
 
This is exactly why we must continue to discuss ICANN.  The most dangerous foes of the great internet society is exclusion and elitism.  The most dangerous weapons are censorship and condescension.
 
Hondurans, Iranians, consumers, users are all welcome here.  Or are they not?
 
*My adopted Grandfather Jacob Maier taught me this term of Roosevelt. It was about the great ones stumping and stooping at the same time -- too often a show. The irony was intended when reflecting on FDRs great affliction.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:


From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:23 PM


Eric,
     You were not denied membership. You were misdirected in how to apply. I asked David to direct you rather to the application system on the website whereby you should be fully included in the system when your application is accepted and ID properly sent in AFTER acceptance. I know of your interest and am awaiting your application.

-Karl E. Peters

Quoting Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>:

> Karl,
>  
> Why was I denied membership?
> 
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM
> 
> 
> While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it  seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater  accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other  evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic  operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government!  :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would  want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have  to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every  nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn  removed in protest of their setting up their own root!
> 
> In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of  multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it  should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be  advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered  through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by  inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by  government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth  will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking  back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles  that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a  chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your  practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet  the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the  community.
> 
> One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more  divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains  (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in  any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized  problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that  was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay  them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that  time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the  US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE  OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to  consult further than just the US government about any particular  string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate  such research with a complete and updated reference of all active  TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, 
 there is a beginning for this
>  underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what  we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your  experiences would help in making determinations and best practices  of our own.
> 
> There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's  participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready  nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for  yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some  questions. Hard questions are welcomed!
> 
> Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can  begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here  to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the  conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who  wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this  list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and  share your wisdom and experience with us as you can.
> 
> -Karl E. Peters
> k.peters at tldainc.org
> 
> Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:
> 
>> Dear Bill and Karl
>> 
>> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue
>> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent
>> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a
>> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it
>> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Rui
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/7d2d41cf/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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 12:30:31 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:30:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet user?
Message-ID: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@[10.0.1.3]>

All,

A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that 
ICANN is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet 
governance.  I'd like to pose the following question:

"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the 
average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a 
domain name and/or a Web site?"

Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes 
that could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the 
public interest with respect to Internet development.  Specific and 
succinct responses would be most useful to understand your point of 
view.

I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between 
the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of 
specificity of the charges brought against the organization with 
respect to its impact on Internet users.

If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you 
think so, and what question would you propose in place of it?  What 
is your response to your proposed question?  Again, specific and 
succinct responses would be most useful to understand your point of 
view.

George Sadowsky

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090707/8b231ca0/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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Tue Jul  7 14:05:21 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:05:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - My take of the story!
In-Reply-To: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <61a136f40907071105w454ea19btcd49f47fcf01f09@mail.gmail.com>

All orthodoxy aside, I was a little surprised myself that the obvious
utility of the Internet you were promoting was not as obvious as I thought
it'd be!

On a personal note, I was scheduled to be in Tegucigalpa on Sunday, 28th
June for a regional technical meeting pertaining to research and education
networks and was informed by email - facilitated by the Internet - late in
the evening on Friday, 26th July that the meeting was canceled due to the
"unstable political situation".

Maybe that was why I saw the connection.

Carlton Samuels

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> The Question that is Honduras is appropriate for this list.  In my defense,
> I was trying to get to the issues of who and why the data we were getting
> was "off norm". My hope was to get some substance to the obvious answer --
> the internet!
>
> You folks just tried to get to heartstrings instead of, or skipping over,
> the internet and its role in a political transition. Just like Somalia, Iraq
> and Iran and now Afganistan the Honduras are being known about through the
> net. How that net is governed as a catalyst for understanding is critical to
> its continued success as an eye opener.*
>
> But lest we forget there are factors we must keep in the forefront.
> Education is marketing and marketing is education. In developing nations
> progression as in revolutions the work must be done outside to inside,
> inside to inside, outside to outside and finally inside to outside. The
> Honduras are a case for a digital divide. Access to information is a
> keystone. Those that are savy obtain the information and then relate it to
> others. So now we must watch and learn how the savy use that technology --
> for themselves or for their countrymen.
>
> Again I ask; Why the overload of women? Why the dearth of 20 to 30? Where
> is the highly sophisticated and tech savy Holy See? Just how is the Internet
> access being used and controlled?
> *look at the questions being asked for IGF and how they directly apply to
> Iran and Honduras.
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>* wrote:
>
>
> From: kpeters at tldainc.org <kpeters at tldainc.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:46 AM
>
> Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet
> governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends
> to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed
> that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the
> voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their
> civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was
> wrong.   Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!!
> -Karl
>
> Quoting Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=correia.rui at gmail.com>
> >:
>
> > Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this
> > discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances
> (different
> > countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more
> > attention ...
> >
> > ........ but then again, it has always been that that way ....
> >
> > Best regrads,
> >
> > Rui
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jlfullsack at orange.fr>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ?
> >>
> >> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ?
> >>
> >> Ban this from our List !
> >>
> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> >>
> >>
> >> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11
> >> > De : "Karl E. Peters"
> >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >> > Copie à :
> >> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story!
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > All international observers,
> >> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and
> >> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired
> >> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it
> >> > international exposure.
> >> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the
> >> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip
> down
> >> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!!
> >> >
> >> > SPANISH
> >> >
> >> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional
> >> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a
> los
> >> cristianos en particular
> >> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos
> >> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico,
> >> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días
> >> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza
> digna de
> >> gran elogio.
> >> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal
> Supremo,
> >> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión
> >> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la
> >> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente.
> >> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos
> >> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido
> como
> >> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009.
> >> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe
> de
> >> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este
> >> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por
> >> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las
> >> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una
> orden
> >> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba
> >> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las
> >> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex
> Presidente
> >> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus
> >> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas,
> la
> >> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del
> >> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente
> >> Constitucional.
> >> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos
> gubernamentales,
> >> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de
> unidad y
> >> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional.
> >> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los
> >> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de
> >> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de
> escribir
> >> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el
> beneficio
> >> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente
> >> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente.
> >> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su
> >> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos
> comienzan a
> >> dudar de que se ha hecho lo
> >> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la
> comunidad
> >> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en
> >> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez
> Chávez
> >> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta
> ahora
> >> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del
> siglo
> >> 21!
> >> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta
> >> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa
> y
> >> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen
> gracia
> >> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo
> gobierno
> >> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado;
> y
> >> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida.
> >> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU
> que
> >> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro
> >> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras
> Iglesias, a
> >> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de
> pasar
> >> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana.
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > ENGLISH
> >> >
> >> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org
> >> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from
> >> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational,
> cultural,
> >> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and
> >> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great
> >> > praise.
> >> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme
> >> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the
> >> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of
> the
> >> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat.
> >> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as
> >> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as
> >> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009.
> >> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a
> >> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental
> >> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic
> >> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown
> of
> >> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was
> based
> >> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which
> >> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the
> >> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President
> >> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal
> >> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces,
> the
> >> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the
> >> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a
> >> > new Constitutional President.
> >> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in
> >> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and
> >> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international
> >> > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the
> >> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of
> >> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this
> >> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the
> >> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately
> led
> >> > to its citizens deposing its President.
> >> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true
> >> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to
> >> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the
> >> > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will
> be
> >> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.
> >> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the
> >> > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles
> >> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century!
> >> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma
> >> > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to
> him
> >> > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in
> >> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they
> >> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and
> for
> >> > the Honduran family to remain united.
> >> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as
> >> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your
> >> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local
> Chamber
> >> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your
> >> > State Senator, and your President.
> >> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our
> >> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic
> organizations,
> >> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in
> >> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> >> >
> >> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/92115eaa/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  Tue Jul  7 14:14:11 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:14:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
Message-ID: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>

       First of all, ANY honest question is the right question to ask...
       From my perspective, the biggest problems naturally lie in the  
handling of top-level domains and affect first those who would run  
them and secondly those who would register under them.
       ICANN's primary interest in the decision of what TLDs to carry  
and who should manage them appears to be who provides the best  
advantage to ICANN, not who would benefit from the effective operation  
of a TLD. As proof of this, look a the meeting where ICANN decided  
against honoring Atlantic Root Network, Inc.'s .BIZ that was already  
profitably operational outside of ICANN and its "sale" to the group  
who had paid lots of ICANN fees and gone through all their financial  
hoops and would, of course collect fees for ICANN from every domain  
registration. Several thousand people with .BIZ domains in the other  
roots were forced to move over to the new company and forfeit their  
placement and hosting and so forth under the previous system, not to  
mention it then costing more with the new people, all on ICANN's whim.
      Then, on the same day, they denied one of our members .WEB after  
he actually pulled out of the other roots and jumped through all the  
hoops and paid all the fees ICANN asked. The VERY weak excuse for this  
second decision, at that time, was that Chris Ambler's .WEB had rivals  
in other roots and ICANN did not want to pick one over the other. To  
this day, there is no .WEB, but there has never been any payment for  
lost rights and revenue to Atlantic Root Network for the clear theft  
of .BIZ. It leaves one to wonder if the .com people who pay almost all  
of ICANN expenses might have been justifiably afraid of a .WEB and  
lobbied against it behind closed doors. I can not prove that, but  
neither can I see any consistant logic in taking .BIZ from one group  
for another, but denying .WEB to Chris on the grounds another group  
was claiming it, also outside of ICANN.
     They lost me forever that day!!!
-Karl E. Peters
kpeters at tldainc.org
(912) 638-1638  (USA)

Quoting George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>:

> All,
>
> A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN
> is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance.
> I'd like to pose the following question:
>
> "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average
> Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name
> and/or a Web site?"
>
> Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that
> could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public
> interest with respect to Internet development.  Specific and succinct
> responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
>
> I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between
> the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of
> specificity of the charges brought against the organization with
> respect to its impact on Internet users.
>
> If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think
> so, and what question would you propose in place of it?  What is your
> response to your proposed question?  Again, specific and succinct
> responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
>
> George 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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 14:36:31 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:06:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@10.0.1.3>
References: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907071136q229b3002vb0ab88736a75ca27@mail.gmail.com>

Hello George Sadowsky

The right question at the right time. The question is also so postively
raised.

Yes, it is strange that there is so much of misunderstanding about ICANN and
its role. And indeed the charges raised are non-specific.

ICANN does have a very important function in the management of critical
internet resources, but often mistaken to be the central and sometimes the
sole Internet Governance orgnaization and with this wrong perception,
sometimes ICANN is blamed for everything that is wrong with Internet. This
could be one reason why a section of the Internet users are quick to blame
ICANN.

The other possible reason why we find ICANN excessively criticized is
possibly due to an unseen political design. I hope that this question also
brings up a debate on the political dimension of such charges. Where does
such an anti-icann campaign originate from? What are the interests that
would like to see a weaker ICANN? Could there be a possible agenda and an
intent behind these adverse opinions? Could it be possible that even some of
the benevolent participants of the IG process are unwittingly drawn into
anti-icann sentiments by the unseen design? (suppliamentary questions, not
questions in place of your question)

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM, George Sadowsky <
george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:

>  All,
>
> A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is
> prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance.  I'd like
> to pose the following question:
>
> "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average
> Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or
> a Web site?"
>
>
> Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that
> could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public
> interest with respect to Internet development.  Specific and succinct
> responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
>
> I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the
> level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity
> of the charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact
> on Internet users.
>
> If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so,
> and what question would you propose in place of it?  What is your response
> to your proposed question?  Again, specific and succinct responses would be
> most useful to understand your point of view.
>
> George 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090708/db7e8fdc/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 15:02:26 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:32:26 -0430
Subject: [governance] Mailing list guidelines
Message-ID: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

This is not an "official" post; although I am a co-coordinator of the 
IGC, the mailing list moderators are "Avri, cpsr2006, Ian Peter, 
Parminder Jeet, Vittorio Bertola" (from 
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance).

I could not find any guidelines for our list at either 
http://www.igcaucus.org/ or http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance, 
so, of course, I did an Internet search :o)

I found several specific guidelines that I would like to share:

3.2. "Remember there are a lot of subscribers on many of our lists. Many 
of them get a lot of mail and are unhappy when they get a lot of email 
that doesn't have any relevance to their work on the list. ***Consider 
whether you really need to share your email with every one of them 
before you post."*** (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines) [Emphasis 
Ginger's]

3.7. "All users are encouraged to send private reminders to contributors 
who contravene Netiquette rules. It is only if the breaches are 
persistent that a moderator should be called on to intervene." 
(http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines)

--"Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours"." 
(http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html)

--"When possible, avoid gender specific address, such as "Gentlemen"". 
(anonymous)

In case you are interested, I found examples of guidelines at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines#netiquette

http://www.conscoop.ottawa.on.ca/gpc/gpc_email_list_code_of_conduct_and_moderator_guidelines.html

http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html

A short "Guide to professional conduct" from 
http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html

    * Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours".
    * Try to be clear and concise.
    * Do not imply fault. Misunderstandings occur frequently; work to
      resolve them without apportioning blame.
    * Accept that having a different opinion does not make anyone "wrong".
    * Do not present opinions as fact.
    * Give some attention to accepted standards of spelling, grammar and
      punctuation.
    * Do not be dismissive.
    * Say that you agree (when you do) even if only partially.
    * Consider whether what you have said could be misinterpreted.
    * Try not to "fight to win". The purpose of the debate is to
      exchange ideas, not to score points or demonstrate inadequacies.

Regards,
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 avri at psg.com  Tue Jul  7 15:08:26 2009
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:08:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Mailing list guidelines
In-Reply-To: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com>
References: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21378041-CD7C-4C12-BF02-198589A1707F@psg.com>

hi,

The charter does contain some indication of list behavior.

Specifically:

Mailing lists will be run according to netiquette guidelines. One  
guideline reference for IGC netiquette is RFC1855. One useful  
guideline for all list participants is:
Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You  
should not send heated message("flames") even if you are provoked. On  
the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's  
prudent not to respond to flames..

Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those  
relating to:
*No personal insults
*No spam

Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or  
removal from the IGC list according to the following process:
The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem
If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber  
publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension  
will include only posting rights.
If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be  
suspended for one (1) month.
Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem  
will result in another public warning.
If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second  
public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend  
the posting rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber  
from the list.
Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove  
someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals  
team.


On 7 Jul 2009, at 15:02, Ginger Paque wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> This is not an "official" post; although I am a co-coordinator of  
> the IGC, the mailing list moderators are "Avri, cpsr2006, Ian Peter,  
> Parminder Jeet, Vittorio Bertola" (from http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance) 
> .
>
> I could not find any guidelines for our list at either http://www.igcaucus.org/ 
>  or http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance, so, of course, I  
> did an Internet search :o)
>
> I found several specific guidelines that I would like to share:
>
> 3.2. "Remember there are a lot of subscribers on many of our lists.  
> Many of them get a lot of mail and are unhappy when they get a lot  
> of email that doesn't have any relevance to their work on the list.  
> ***Consider whether you really need to share your email with every  
> one of them before you post."*** (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines 
> ) [Emphasis Ginger's]
>
> 3.7. "All users are encouraged to send private reminders to  
> contributors who contravene Netiquette rules. It is only if the  
> breaches are persistent that a moderator should be called on to  
> intervene." (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines)
>
> --"Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours"." (http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html 
> )
>
> --"When possible, avoid gender specific address, such as  
> "Gentlemen"". (anonymous)
>
> In case you are interested, I found examples of guidelines at:
>
> http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines#netiquette
>
> http://www.conscoop.ottawa.on.ca/gpc/gpc_email_list_code_of_conduct_and_moderator_guidelines.html
>
> http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html
>
> A short "Guide to professional conduct" from http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html
>
>   * Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours".
>   * Try to be clear and concise.
>   * Do not imply fault. Misunderstandings occur frequently; work to
>     resolve them without apportioning blame.
>   * Accept that having a different opinion does not make anyone  
> "wrong".
>   * Do not present opinions as fact.
>   * Give some attention to accepted standards of spelling, grammar and
>     punctuation.
>   * Do not be dismissive.
>   * Say that you agree (when you do) even if only partially.
>   * Consider whether what you have said could be misinterpreted.
>   * Try not to "fight to win". The purpose of the debate is to
>     exchange ideas, not to score points or demonstrate inadequacies.
>
> Regards,
> 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Tue Jul  7 15:17:43 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:17:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@10.0.1.3>
References: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <61a136f40907071217u6e963c2ch10f23d439ed33a06@mail.gmail.com>

George:
A well-placed question, indeed. My view:

While ICANN is not the only game with respect to Internet governance, the
fact that it coordinates issues pertaining to Names and Numbers gives it
pride of place in the general consciousness.  The reason is quite prosaic:
most Internet users will interact with the platform by invoking either names
or numbers. So any negative thing that can be remotely attached to a "name
and numbers thing" is automatically at ICANN's door.

Furthermore, you cannot underestimate how the existing operational framework
of ICANN provides a lightning rod for views suspicious - or even impatient -
of the general political agenda that undergirds the unipolar political
world. JPA is seen as a creature of United States control of what has become
public goods. That remains an area of unease and attracts contending
political posturings.

I take a slightly different - and more complex - view to the political
situation. It begins with the fact that ICANN is an American corporation.
Therefore, it comes saddled with the socialization and cultural
sensitivities of an American corporate entity.  This is not a reflexively
bad thing.  But it is decidedly a challenge that must be faced, acknowledged
and mediated.

Carlton Samuels

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, George Sadowsky<
george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> All,
> A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is
> prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance.  I'd
like
> to pose the following question:
>
> "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average
> Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name
and/or
> a Web site?"
>
> Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that
> could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public
> interest with respect to Internet development.  Specific and succinct
> responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
> I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the
> level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of
specificity
> of the charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact
> on Internet users.
> If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think
so,
> and what question would you propose in place of it?  What is your response
> to your proposed question?  Again, specific and succinct responses would
be
> most useful to understand your point of view.
> George 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090707/f2dc5fbe/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 Jul  7 16:01:16 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:16 +1000
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <C679E6AC.3C48%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi George,

The answer to your question is clearly not much at all. However, a more
interesting question is ³how could ICANN advantage and assist the average
Internet user ³? Here are a few starters

ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing
equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions rather
than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern
ICANN could extend its mandate to assist in dealing with security and
technical issues which affect users

I¹m sure there are many more!


On 8/07/09 2:30 AM, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:

> All,
> 
> A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is
> prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance.  I'd like
> to pose the following question:
> 
>> "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average
>> Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or
>> a Web site?"
> 
> Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that could
> be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public interest with
> respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct responses would be most
> useful to understand your point of view.
> 
> I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the level
> of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity of the
> charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact on
> Internet users.
> 
> If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so,
> and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your response to
> your proposed question?  Again, specific and succinct responses would be most
> useful to understand your point of view.
> 
> George 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090708/b45bb3dd/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  Tue Jul  7 16:49:27 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:49:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <C679E6AC.3C48%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <p06200770c67928a31a6a@[10.0.1.3]>
 <C679E6AC.3C48%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AH2Kk7VXT7UKFATU@perry.co.uk>

In message <C679E6AC.3C48%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 06:01:16 on Wed, 8 
Jul 2009, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing 
>equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions 
>rather than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern

Would you raise the taxes to support that? $30M a year [ie half their 
budget] doesn't go very far if there's a billion people to share it 
between.

My 3c worth.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 17:46:23 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
Message-ID: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>






No this is entirely a negative and wrong question.
 
The question that one asks of governance is not "how does it hurt?".
 
The question is and shall always be "how does it help?"
 
And the fact that most dotcommoners do not have a place to call home on the net is proof of failure.
 
 

 
"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or a Web site?"


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090707/d729f43a/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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 17:59:56 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:59:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
Message-ID: <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]>

Karl,

I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past 
individual registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been 
explicitly approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to 
re-register with an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name.  That 
appears to be historically correct.

However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current 
harm that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users?  You might 
argue that continued restrictive expansion of the name space is 
harming users, but I think that this is more like not allowing 
drivers to obtain the vanity license plates that they want for their 
cars  -  it does not stop them from obtaining their license plates 
with another background or tag number, and they can they drive 
anywhere that anyone else can drive.

Do you agree with this, or can you identify specific current harm 
that ICANN is doing to the individual Internet user?  Some current 
Internet users are, of course, registrants, but more are not and just 
user the Internet.

George


At 1:14 PM -0500 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote:
>       First of all, ANY honest question is the right question to ask...
>       From my perspective, the biggest problems naturally lie in the 
>handling of top-level domains and affect first those who would run 
>them and secondly those who would register under them.
>       ICANN's primary interest in the decision of what TLDs to carry 
>and who should manage them appears to be who provides the best 
>advantage to ICANN, not who would benefit from the effective 
>operation of a TLD. As proof of this, look a the meeting where ICANN 
>decided against honoring Atlantic Root Network, Inc.'s .BIZ that was 
>already profitably operational outside of ICANN and its "sale" to 
>the group who had paid lots of ICANN fees and gone through all their 
>financial hoops and would, of course collect fees for ICANN from 
>every domain registration. Several thousand people with .BIZ domains 
>in the other roots were forced to move over to the new company and 
>forfeit their placement and hosting and so forth under the previous 
>system, not to mention it then costing more with the new people, all 
>on ICANN's whim.
>      Then, on the same day, they denied one of our members .WEB 
>after he actually pulled out of the other roots and jumped through 
>all the hoops and paid all the fees ICANN asked. The VERY weak 
>excuse for this second decision, at that time, was that Chris 
>Ambler's .WEB had rivals in other roots and ICANN did not want to 
>pick one over the other. To this day, there is no .WEB, but there 
>has never been any payment for lost rights and revenue to Atlantic 
>Root Network for the clear theft of .BIZ. It leaves one to wonder if 
>the .com people who pay almost all of ICANN expenses might have been 
>justifiably afraid of a .WEB and lobbied against it behind closed 
>doors. I can not prove that, but neither can I see any consistant 
>logic in taking .BIZ from one group for another, but denying .WEB to 
>Chris on the grounds another group was claiming it, also outside of 
>ICANN.
>     They lost me forever that day!!!
>-Karl E. Peters
>kpeters at tldainc.org
>(912) 638-1638  (USA)
>
>Quoting George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>:
>
>>All,
>>
>>A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN
>>is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance.
>>I'd like to pose the following question:
>>
>>"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average
>>Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name
>>and/or a Web site?"
>>
>>Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that
>>could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public
>>interest with respect to Internet development.  Specific and succinct
>>responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
>>
>>I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between
>>the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of
>>specificity of the charges brought against the organization with
>>respect to its impact on Internet users.
>>
>>If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think
>>so, and what question would you propose in place of it?  What is your
>>response to your proposed question?  Again, specific and succinct
>>responses would be most useful to understand your point of view.
>>
>>George 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue Jul  7 18:11:15 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:11:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <p06200775c679766b08f6@[10.0.1.3]>

Eric,

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not sure that I fully 
understand your answer.

So if your substitute question is "How does ICANN help the average 
Internet user?"  --  my first (but not the only) response would be 
that it runs a hierarchical naming system that permits users, if they 
wish, to obtain a name from a moderately restricted set of 
categories, and the system includes registries that permit these 
names to be dynamically resolved to IP addresses that are necessary 
to ensure that traffic flows to where it should. It also works to 
prevent the fraudulent use or hijacking of names at several levels.

I suspect that you will agree with the above description, and that 
your concern is rather that it should do more to help individual 
Internet users.  What more, very specifically, should it do?

And in particular, what more should it do for the vast majority of 
Internet users who don't have a domain name themselves but just use 
the DNS to access Internet-based resources and communications?

George

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


At 2:46 PM -0700 7/7/09, Eric Dierker wrote:
>No this is entirely a negative and wrong question.
>
>The question that one asks of governance is not "how does it hurt?".
>
>The question is and shall always be "how does it help?"
>
>And the fact that most dotcommoners do not have a place to call home 
>on the net is proof of failure.
>
>
>
>
>
>"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the 
>average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a 
>domain name and/or a Web site?"
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20090707/555ee9e5/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 Jul  7 18:13:10 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:13:10 +1000
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <AH2Kk7VXT7UKFATU@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C67A0596.3C5C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Roland,

Yes I would happily pay more than 25 cents per annum per domain for a good
cause - but not for the current ICANN and its expenditure patterns.




On 8/07/09 6:49 AM, "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <C679E6AC.3C48%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 06:01:16 on Wed, 8
> Jul 2009, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>> ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing
>> equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions
>> rather than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern
> 
> Would you raise the taxes to support that? $30M a year [ie half their
> budget] doesn't go very far if there's a billion people to share it
> between.
> 
> My 3c worth.


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

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


From karl at cavebear.com  Tue Jul  7 22:13:54 2009
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:13:54 -0700
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>


On 07/07/2009 02:59 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:

(Different Karl here)...

> I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past individual
> registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been explicitly
> approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to re-register with
> an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name. That appears to be
> historically correct.

There are people who do have names in TLDs that are not found in ICANN's 
list.  These include the original .biz, IOD's .web and my .ewe.  (My 
wife has the name "beautiful.ewe", I, of course, have "wassamatta.ewe".)

The fact that ICANN doesn't have these in its inventory does not have 
any effect on the fact and reality that those relationships have 
substance and reality in the stream of interstate commerce.

For example, I have and use cavebear.web in IOD's .web.  We have a 
contractual relationship.  I can resolve those names even if many others 
can not.  If one says that "it isn't real" or "that it is a toy" I'd 
suggest that those same arguments once could have been applied to those 
things called "email" and "the world wide web".  I remember back in 1972 
when I handed out my ARPAnet email address and many people said "what's 
that?"

> However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current harm
> that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users?

Well to start there is the amount of several hundred million $(US) that 
is being taken every year from internet users in the form of arbitrary 
and groundless registry fees that ICANN grants to TLD registries.  ICANN 
has not a clue what the actual costs of providing registry services are 
and seems to show no interest in finding out and much less interest in 
ever conforming those mandated fees to actual costs plus a reasonable 
TLD monopoly profit.  Even J.D. Rockefeller couldn't have worked out a 
sweeter deal.

Then there is the fact that ICANN has adopted privacy-busting policies 
that bend over to give solace to the trademark protection industry.

There are also many internet innovators who, albeit relatively few in 
number, who want to try out new ideas.  ICANN, acting like a 
trade-protective guild, has locked those people out of the marketplace 
and that, in turn, denies the internet community the opportunity to 
partake of new ideas.

Some ideas may be good, some may be silly, some may be duds:

For example, I have my .ewe TLD.  It is highly protective of privacy and 
has several other innovations - see http://www.eweregistry.com/ 
Although it is 100% lawful it violates ICANN's protectionist policies 
and it would be a waste of time and money for me to even apply to ICANN.

In the longer term I see enormous harm arising from ICANN's 
protectionism.  That harm would be the fragmentation of the DNS name space.

There are already many forces that create pressure to fragment the net 
in various ways:

First is the change in perception by users (a perception that is 
strongly encouraged by the large commercial providers such as Comcast 
and AT&T) that the net is not an end-to-end carrier of packets but, 
rather, is access to services such as web browsing, email, and skype. 
That change in perception makes it easy, and often desirable to a 
provider, to slip in application layer gateways for those few 
applications but with immeasurable ancillary damage arising from the 
death of the end-to-end principle.

Second is the IPv4 address issue.  IPv6 isn't taking off, and even if it 
does, because it is not an evolutionary protocol but really a new 
protocol, any IPv6 user who wants to experience the full richness of the 
net is still going to have to have an IPv4 address as well thus 
nullifying the pressure on the V4 address space.  The address pressure 
will drive people to install super-NATs and application layer gateways.

Third there is national pride and cultural groups that want to build 
their own view of the net.  One can't argue with the drive that makes 
parents want a better way to protect children from porn.  And one way 
for that drive to be satisfied is one that has been historically proven 
- separation, whether it the Mormons moving to Utah in 1846 or other 
groups.  They may, like China, find it useful to wall themselves in (or 
us out).  DNS is a useful tool when one wants to do that.

I think we are heading for a lumpy internet, one that more resembles our 
mobile phone networks here in the US - we can all call one another but 
other services don't work so well across provider boundaries.

ICANN's incumbent and TM industry protective policies are lubricating 
and fueling the engines that will create this lumpy internet.

There is one final way in which ICANN is harming internet users - ICANN 
projects the glamor (i.e. the false impression) that it actually is 
doing things to assure that DNS query packets are reliably, quickly, and 
accurately turned into DNS reply packets.

Users depend on that every second of every minute of internet use.  Yet 
ICANN does not provide any protections.

If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in 
actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says "fix 
it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job".  That somebody is going to be 
very surprised, and very unhappy, as will all those internet users who 
thought that it that was precisely ICANN's job.

ICANN does try to protect the name registration systems.  But that is 
really of interest to internet users when on those relatively rare 
occasions they want to acquire a name or update name server records.

ICANN has never imposed real operational standards on name server 
operators - the standards that are there are rather light weight - and 
there is nothing about recovery should bad things happen.  We have been 
fortunate that root server operators and TLD operators for the most part 
have run first class quality operations.  But there is nothing by ICANN 
that requires or even induces this halcyon state to continue into the 
future.

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Jul  8 05:26:20 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:26:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Obama on Civil Society
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Here is a nice statement President Obama made in a meeting with Russian Civil Society Groups during his recent meeting in Moscow:
 
Obama: "Make no mistake: Civil society -- civil groups hold their governments to high standards. And I know -- because this audience includes Americans who've been critical of me for not moving fast enough on issues that are of great importance. They've said it to my face. In the Oval Office. While I was President. (Laughter.) They told me I was wrong. And in some cases they changed my mind; in some cases they didn't. And that's okay, because we're not going to agree on everything -- but I know this: Their voices and their views and their criticism ultimately will make my decisions better, they will make me ask tougher questions and ask my staff tougher questions. And we'll find out: Are there ways of doing what we need to do that conform to our deepest held values and our ideals, and that are sustainable over the long term? That makes our country stronger in the long term, and I wouldn't want it any other way."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/REMARKS-BY-THE-PRESIDENT-AT-PARALLEL-CIVIL-SOCIETY-SUMMIT/
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  8 05:29:24 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:29:24 +0500
Subject: [governance] Obama on Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> 
	<p06200773c679740879ce@10.0.1.3> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <8017791e0907080229jbdc66cy45b85fa7ffe81cf7@mail.gmail.com>

Wolfgang,
Thank you for your sharing the article, appreciate your efforts, Yes, we
agree this is a very nice statement from President Obama.
with best regards
Sincerley
Asif Kabani

2009/7/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

>
> Here is a nice statement President Obama made in a meeting with Russian
> Civil Society Groups during his recent meeting in Moscow:
>
> Obama: "Make no mistake: Civil society -- civil groups hold their
> governments to high standards. And I know -- because this audience includes
> Americans who've been critical of me for not moving fast enough on issues
> that are of great importance. They've said it to my face. In the Oval
> Office. While I was President. (Laughter.) They told me I was wrong. And in
> some cases they changed my mind; in some cases they didn't. And that's okay,
> because we're not going to agree on everything -- but I know this: Their
> voices and their views and their criticism ultimately will make my decisions
> better, they will make me ask tougher questions and ask my staff tougher
> questions. And we'll find out: Are there ways of doing what we need to do
> that conform to our deepest held values and our ideals, and that are
> sustainable over the long term? That makes our country stronger in the long
> term, and I wouldn't want it any other way."
>
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/REMARKS-BY-THE-PRESIDENT-AT-PARALLEL-CIVIL-SOCIETY-SUMMIT/
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: http://www.isd-rc.org
        http://www.kabani.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090708/9c484dba/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  Wed Jul  8 05:53:39 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:53:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <C67A0596.3C5C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AH2Kk7VXT7UKFATU@perry.co.uk>
 <C67A0596.3C5C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <N1qpoIrjyGVKFApf@perry.co.uk>

In message <C67A0596.3C5C%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 08:13:10 on Wed, 8 
Jul 2009, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes

>I would happily pay more than 25 cents per annum per domain

Why only domain registrants paying; what about anyone with 2MB or higher 
broadband access? Couldn't they all afford a few dollars a year 
packet-tax too.

>for a good cause

So what would be your preferred "good causes"?

>- but not for the current ICANN and its expenditure patterns.

The expenditure is relatively small in the great scheme of things, can't 
we look forward rather than backwards?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Jul  8 06:10:19 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:10:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul 
2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in 
>actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says "fix 
>it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job".

So what failed, to cause that DNS outage?

If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most 
tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's 
ability to fix.

I'd be interested to know the exact issue, as some tld operators claim 
100% historical availability of their DNS servers.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Jul  8 06:28:38 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:28:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments
Message-ID: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]>

Email from Markus Kummer about the IGF review, he 
asked the email be forwarded to all potential 
contributors.  Comments from all would be very 
welcome.

Apologies for any duplication.

Adam




At 10:16 AM +0200 7/8/09, Markus KUMMER wrote:
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>You may recall that we set 15 July as a deadline 
>for submitting comments with regard to the IGF 
>Review process. All comments received within 
>that deadline will be reflected in a synthesis 
>paper that will be translated into all six UN 
>languages as an official input into the 
>³consultation with Forum participants² at the 
>Sharm El Sheikh meeting. The call for 
>contributions is posted on our Web site. We have 
>also sent a letter to all Missions in Geneva, 
>asking for comments. Comments can be sent by 
>electronic means, but also by fax or by normal 
>mail.
>
>I would also like to encourage all MAG members 
>to send us comments on behalf of their 
>respective institutions, if they have not 
>already done so, and please encourage others to 
>submit contributions. The more comments we 
>receive, the more valuable our paper will be!
>
>While we cannot guarantee that the synthesis 
>paper will reflect comments received after the 
>15 July deadline, we will do our utmost to do 
>so. In any case, all papers received after that 
>deadline will be posted on our Web site.
>
>Best regards
>Markus
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From karl at cavebear.com  Wed Jul  8 07:02:45 2009
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:02:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>

On 07/08/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul
> 2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>> If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in
>> actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says
>> "fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job".
>
> So what failed, to cause that DNS outage?

I prefixed my sentence with "If".

So far DNS outages have been relatively minor or local.  But then again, 
from a worldwide point of view, the loss of electrical power to the 
Northeast portion of the US was a local matter.

Systemic flaws tend to creep into our systems and bite us by surprise - 
for example, it was the centralized congestion of Google Adwords and 
Google's "urchin" for web analysis, that tended to drag down intenet web 
performance when Michael Jackson died.

There is no particular reason to believe that DNS, particularly DNS with 
DNSSEC, does not contain similar points that could be tickled by 
accident (or on purpose).

For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their own 
names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility of 
some crossover failures should .net have problems.

By-the-way, one very under-discussed matter is the degree to which 
DNSSEC might proved to be an obstacle to recovery should DNS ever wobble 
off axis.

> If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most
> tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's
> ability to fix.

There are several things that ICANN can do.  Many are already being done 
by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue to do 
so.  Take a look at the latter part of this: 
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html  In it you will see 
a list of things that ICANN could contractually require.

In addition, many human or natural failures are regional - Katrina 
affected only a small region - but for the people in that region they 
perceive major outages.  ICANN could, but has not, engaged in any effort 
to make it easier for people inside those regions to rebuild services 
locally rather than sitting on their hands waiting for rescuers to carve 
their way in.  (I know the feeling and frustrating of waiting for the 
outsiders to work their way in - here in Santa Cruz the wrath of the 
gods has hit us with fire, flood, earthquake, and some fruitcake who 
thought that blowing up power transmission lines in celebration of 
earth-day [and every day of the following two weeks] was fun.)

I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think 
KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD 
contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical 
community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services. 
But it got deep sixed.

> I'd be interested to know the exact issue, as some tld operators claim
> 100% historical availability of their DNS servers.

I can believe that claim.  But then again, as they say on securities 
prospectuses - past performance is not necessarily an indicator of 
future performance.   I remember one day when I brought down an entire 
company's network because of a single packet I originated on a 
supposedly isolated test network (we were doing one of the fabled TCP/IP 
bakeoffs) that got propagated and took out every router in the company. 
  Never happened before.  That was the same day that I saw a network 
adaptor with no software driver answer ARP's - turned out that the 
device was wedged and was re-sending its last packet.  After than I 
began to understand the full import of Mr. Murphy and his law (.i.e. If 
anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time.)

		--karl--


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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Jul  8 07:35:21 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:35:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A547CD5.6060105 at cavebear.com>, at 04:02:45 on Wed, 8 Jul 
2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>On 07/08/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul
>> 2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>>> If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in
>>> actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says
>>> "fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job".
>>
>> So what failed, to cause that DNS outage?
>
>I prefixed my sentence with "If".

But you followed it with "as they did in actuality over the US 
Northeast".

Do you mean the electricity (literally the lights) went out?

>So far DNS outages have been relatively minor or local.  But then 
>again, from a worldwide point of view, the loss of electrical power to 
>the Northeast portion of the US was a local matter.

Of course, a tiny proportion of the world's DNS relies entirely upon the 
Northest US.

>For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their 
>own names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility 
>of some crossover failures should .net have problems.

But the DNS resolvers will typically cache the results for a fortnight. 
Which will give people some time to work around whatever the problem 
was.

>> If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most
>> tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's
>> ability to fix.
>
>There are several things that ICANN can do.  Many are already being 
>done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue to 
>do so.  Take a look at the latter part of this: 
>http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html  In it you will see 
>a list of things that ICANN could contractually require.

So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and 
control of the currently independent distributed root servers?

>ICANN could, but has not, engaged in any effort to make it easier for 
>people inside those regions to rebuild services locally

So they should have a role as "firefighters" moving in to re-establish 
connectivity where the current arrangements are too slow?

>I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think 
>KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD 
>contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical 
>community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services.

Anyone could do that. Have you approached other than ICANN with this 
idea?
-- 
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 karl at cavebear.com  Wed Jul  8 08:00:04 2009
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:00:04 -0700
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>

On 07/08/2009 04:35 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

> Do you mean the electricity (literally the lights) went out?

More than once.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

> Of course, a tiny proportion of the world's DNS relies entirely upon the
> Northest US.

When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America fell 
off the net.  On the net geographic proximity is often quite different 
from net proximity.


>> For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their
>> own names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility
>> of some crossover failures should .net have problems.
>
> But the DNS resolvers will typically cache the results for a fortnight.
> Which will give people some time to work around whatever the problem was.

Caching is its own source of risks - if bad data does get in, sometimes 
you have to wait a cache timeout (about 48 hours for most TLD data) else 
you have to engage in manual intervention.

Bad data isn't always immediately detected.  For example, I've had bad 
tertiary MX records that went unnoticed until my primary and secondary 
mail exchanger were down at the same time - an event that happened years 
after the bad data was lodged into the system.

And suppose that an ill .net server decided to issue update 
notifications to induce the pulling of bad data despite a cache and 
uncompleted TTL?

Every point in which something touches something else is a kind of 
marionette string that can be pulled.  Often it does nothing.  But in 
the hands of Mr. Murphy or another actor things sometimes go terribly 
wrong.  From preliminary reports the pilots of AF flight 447 learned 
what happens when systems that can't fail do fail.


>> There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being
>> done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue
>> to do so. Take a look at the latter part of this:
>> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see
>> a list of things that ICANN could contractually require.
>
> So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and
> control of the currently independent distributed root servers?

That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate.  ICANN's original goal 
was to assure that DNS query packets are quickly, efficiently, and 
accurately translated into DNS response packets.  Unless ICANN oversees 
and regulates root server operations we are flying only on the good will 
of the root server operators.  (A good group, but they are mortal - and 
in some cases, such as the root servers operated by the US military, 
their higher allegiance is not to the community of internet users.)

> So they should have a role as "firefighters" moving in to re-establish
> connectivity where the current arrangements are too slow?

Not in real time, but they could A) facilitate the creation of recovery 
facilities and B) not stomp on those who try to create recovery facilities.

>> I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think
>> KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD
>> contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical
>> community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services.
>
> Anyone could do that. Have you approached other than ICANN with this idea?

Yes, several times.  Don't forget I was on the ICANN board of directors, 
and even with that close degree of access, the idea never got a decent 
hearing.

It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do.  To build a 
usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as to 
know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS.  Some TLD 
operators would consider that kind of data to be rather proprietary. 
ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere mortal.

		--karl--

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 09:20:38 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:50:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to be included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus statement by July 15th.

In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. Please take a look and comment again.

b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post proposed text.

Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth Graham's previous suggestions: 

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder
principle.

[We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette Hoffman]  

The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues:

1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum
driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is two points in one and should be separated]

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster
more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
through, but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.


2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens
understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,
particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.

[Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we
believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG
definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than
a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil
society, “in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are
agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The
development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms,
rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it much more specific]






Adam Peake wrote:
> Email from Markus Kummer about the IGF review, he asked the email be 
> forwarded to all potential contributors. Comments from all would be 
> very welcome.
>
> Apologies for any duplication.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> At 10:16 AM +0200 7/8/09, Markus KUMMER wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> You may recall that we set 15 July as a deadline for submitting 
>> comments with regard to the IGF Review process. All comments received 
>> within that deadline will be reflected in a synthesis paper that will 
>> be translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the 
>> ³consultation with Forum participants² at the Sharm El Sheikh 
>> meeting. The call for contributions is posted on our Web site. We 
>> have also sent a letter to all Missions in Geneva, asking for 
>> comments. Comments can be sent by electronic means, but also by fax 
>> or by normal mail.
>>
>> I would also like to encourage all MAG members to send us comments on 
>> behalf of their respective institutions, if they have not already 
>> done so, and please encourage others to submit contributions. The 
>> more comments we receive, the more valuable our paper will be!
>>
>> While we cannot guarantee that the synthesis paper will reflect 
>> comments received after the 15 July deadline, we will do our utmost 
>> to do so. In any case, all papers received after that deadline will 
>> be posted on our Web site.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Markus
>>
> ____

The questions we are asked to address are:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 
acted as a catalyst for change?
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
mandate, and why/why not?
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?
7. Do you have any other comments?


> ________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jul  8 09:29:10 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:29:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <p0620077ac679b493070b@[10.0.1.3]>

Karl,

You've written a thoughtful piece here.  I have some mixed reactions 
to your comments.

OIn addition, since you wrote, Roland has started a more technical 
discussion with you regarding some of the points you raise, and I 
would prefer not to mix my response in with that discussion.

I'll provide a short response here, and since we know each other 
personally, I'll look forward to welcoming you at my house the next 
time you visit your property in New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, I'll 
respond as best I can to what you have written.

  At 7:13 PM -0700 7/7/09, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>On 07/07/2009 02:59 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>
>(Different Karl here)...
>
>>I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past individual
>>registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been explicitly
>>approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to re-register with
>>an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name. That appears to be
>>historically correct.
>
>There are people who do have names in TLDs that are not found in 
>ICANN's list.  These include the original .biz, IOD's .web and my 
>.ewe.  (My wife has the name "beautiful.ewe", I, of course, have 
>"wassamatta.ewe".)

That's creative. :-)

>
>The fact that ICANN doesn't have these in its inventory does not 
>have any effect on the fact and reality that those relationships 
>have substance and reality in the stream of interstate commerce.
>
>For example, I have and use cavebear.web in IOD's .web.  We have a 
>contractual relationship.  I can resolve those names even if many 
>others can not.  If one says that "it isn't real" or "that it is a 
>toy" I'd suggest that those same arguments once could have been 
>applied to those things called "email" and "the world wide web".  I 
>remember back in 1972 when I handed out my ARPAnet email address and 
>many people said "what's that?"

I understand the difference in philosophy here regarding what should 
go into the root and how easily it should go in  --  and who should 
say whether and when it goes in.

However, given ICANN's current de facto authority over the root, I 
think that creating new TLDs outside that framework and providing 
such addresses to others DOES disadvantage ordinary users by giving 
them generally non-resolvable addresses.  And it's the average user 
that I'm focusing upon here.

>
>>However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current harm
>>that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users?
>
>Well to start there is the amount of several hundred million $(US) 
>that is being taken every year from internet users in the form of 
>arbitrary and groundless registry fees that ICANN grants to TLD 
>registries.  ICANN has not a clue what the actual costs of providing 
>registry services are and seems to show no interest in finding out 
>and much less interest in ever conforming those mandated fees to 
>actual costs plus a reasonable TLD monopoly profit.  Even J.D. 
>Rockefeller couldn't have worked out a sweeter deal.

I'm not sure that this is still true, but if so, I agree that ICAN 
should have better information.  On the other hand, it's difficult to 
get excited about a $6-$10 per year charge, especially since the 
average user doesn't need one to benefit from the Internet, and those 
users sho need one can presumably afford it (since the cost of 
computers and netwrk connectivity are orders of magnitude larger.

>
>Then there is the fact that ICANN has adopted privacy-busting 
>policies that bend over to give solace to the trademark protection 
>industry.

I have some concerns regarding the role that the IPR community plays. 
I also have concerns about the current interplay between IDN TLDs and 
the IPR community's concerns.  In fat, one could argue that if ICAN 
were to hold up IDN TLDs in favor of the IPR community's concerns, 
then this would clearly be harmful to those users  --  and there are 
a LOT of them  -- who are unable to use the latin character set.

>
>There are also many internet innovators who, albeit relatively few 
>in number, who want to try out new ideas.  ICANN, acting like a 
>trade-protective guild, has locked those people out of the 
>marketplace and that, in turn, denies the internet community the 
>opportunity to partake of new ideas.
>
>Some ideas may be good, some may be silly, some may be duds:
>
>For example, I have my .ewe TLD.  It is highly protective of privacy 
>and has several other innovations - see http://www.eweregistry.com/ 
>Although it is 100% lawful it violates ICANN's protectionist 
>policies and it would be a waste of time and money for me to even 
>apply to ICANN.
>
>In the longer term I see enormous harm arising from ICANN's 
>protectionism.  That harm would be the fragmentation of the DNS name 
>space.

Yes, if others decide to abandon ICAN's model and go around it. 
That's in effect what you're doing with .ewe, isn't it?

Karl, that does not help the average user.

>
>There are already many forces that create pressure to fragment the 
>net in various ways:
>
>First is the change in perception by users (a perception that is 
>strongly encouraged by the large commercial providers such as 
>Comcast and AT&T) that the net is not an end-to-end carrier of 
>packets but, rather, is access to services such as web browsing, 
>email, and skype. That change in perception makes it easy, and often 
>desirable to a provider, to slip in application layer gateways for 
>those few applications but with immeasurable ancillary damage 
>arising from the death of the end-to-end principle.

It's not clear what ICANN's role is here.

>
>Second is the IPv4 address issue.  IPv6 isn't taking off, and even 
>if it does, because it is not an evolutionary protocol but really a 
>new protocol, any IPv6 user who wants to experience the full 
>richness of the net is still going to have to have an IPv4 address 
>as well thus nullifying the pressure on the V4 address space.  The 
>address pressure will drive people to install super-NATs and 
>application layer gateways.

Perhaps so; again ICANN is supplying the addresses through the RIRs 
and is doing what it can in the way of education.  Would you argue 
that any of this is harmful?

>
>Third there is national pride and cultural groups that want to build 
>their own view of the net.  One can't argue with the drive that 
>makes parents want a better way to protect children from porn.  And 
>one way for that drive to be satisfied is one that has been 
>historically proven - separation, whether it the Mormons moving to 
>Utah in 1846 or other groups.  They may, like China, find it useful 
>to wall themselves in (or us out).  DNS is a useful tool when one 
>wants to do that.
>
>I think we are heading for a lumpy internet, one that more resembles 
>our mobile phone networks here in the US - we can all call one 
>another but other services don't work so well across provider 
>boundaries.
>
>ICANN's incumbent and TM industry protective policies are 
>lubricating and fueling the engines that will create this lumpy 
>internet.
>
>There is one final way in which ICANN is harming internet users - 
>ICANN projects the glamor (i.e. the false impression) that it 
>actually is doing things to assure that DNS query packets are 
>reliably, quickly, and accurately turned into DNS reply packets.
>
>Users depend on that every second of every minute of internet use. 
>Yet ICANN does not provide any protections.
>
>If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in 
>actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says 
>"fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job".  That somebody is 
>going to be very surprised, and very unhappy, as will all those 
>internet users who thought that it that was precisely ICANN's job.
>
>ICANN does try to protect the name registration systems.  But that 
>is really of interest to internet users when on those relatively 
>rare occasions they want to acquire a name or update name server 
>records.
>
>ICANN has never imposed real operational standards on name server 
>operators - the standards that are there are rather light weight - 
>and there is nothing about recovery should bad things happen.  We 
>have been fortunate that root server operators and TLD operators for 
>the most part have run first class quality operations.  But there is 
>nothing by ICANN that requires or even induces this halcyon state to 
>continue into the future.

The relationship with the root server operators has been essentially 
cooperative and voluntary, as is the relationship with the IETF. This 
system of voluntary distributed administration of the Internet has 
brought us to where we are now, for better or for worse.  More 
centralized and tightly coupled systems have existed in the past  -- 
remember SNA??  -- but anything like that would not have spread as 
quickly or as innovatively as what we have now. Internet 
administration is an evolutionary process, and I recognize that a 
number of your suggestions are designed to help it in the next stage 
of its evolution.

There is certainly room to discuss models of Internet administration, 
and that is what the IGF is trying to do.  My own assessment is that 
the IGF operates very much on the political level, with some 
disregard for technical realities, whereas the I* community (ICANN, 
ISOC, IAB, IETF, IESG, RIRs, etc.) proceeds to evolve more on a base 
of operational and technical reality.

Finally, I hope we continue this conversation in person.  My focus is 
likely to be primarily on the average user.  I want the domain name 
system to help that user navigate the Internet and obtain the 
information resource and communications capabilities that he/she 
needs.  I view ICANN as one of the organizations that is involved in 
providing that assistance, and I think that it should abide by the 
Hipocratic oath, "Do no harm."  After that, let's see how we can 
evolve it  --  as well as the whole administrative structure of which 
it is a part  -- to "do better."



>
>		--karl--

Regards,

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Jul  8 09:29:05 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:29:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul 
2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes

>When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America 
>fell off the net.

(Although some not until a fortnight later). My impression at the time 
was that this was due to those countries having non-redundant cctld DNS 
served from New York, rather than them no longer being able see the root 
servers and other gtld servers from their country.

Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg 
dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a 
test of global resilience and redundancy? Surely different operators 
will have different ideas about this, and differentiating between them 
is part of the process of deciding where to buy your names.

Meanwhile, I hope that lessons have been learnt about the DNS for 
cctlds.

>Caching is its own source of risks - if bad data does get in, sometimes 
>you have to wait a cache timeout (about 48 hours for most TLD data) 
>else you have to engage in manual intervention.

I would guess that avoiding bad data would be a priority (just like 
avoiding getting water in your brake fluid is). Brakes are still a good 
idea!

>Bad data isn't always immediately detected.

If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad 
data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly 
quickly.

And I don't expect tlds like .com to allow bad data into their records 
in the first place.

>From preliminary reports the pilots of AF flight 447 learned what 
>happens when systems that can't fail do fail.

Almost every major airline accident is a result of two (or more likely 
three) unlikely things happening at the same time. Happily, if your DNS 
sever crashes, you can reboot it.

>>> There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being
>>> done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue
>>> to do so. Take a look at the latter part of this:
>>> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see
>>> a list of things that ICANN could contractually require.
>>
>> So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and
>> control of the currently independent distributed root servers?
>
>That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate.

The root server project you imply, was explicitly in their mandate? Or 
just the kind of thing you personally would have expected a more 
generally worded mandate to include? (A genuine question).

>Don't forget I was on the ICANN board of directors,

Sorry, I didn't know that to start with. At that time in my life people 
warned me against getting involved with ICANN.

>It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do.  To build a 
>usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as 
>to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS.  Some 
>TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather 
>proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere 
>mortal.

There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100 
websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS 
data, or just the zone files from each tld?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jul  8 09:56:56 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:56:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ginger

On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth  
> Graham's previous suggestions:

My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant  
concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious  
why we'd put it back on the table as a starting point.  In any event  
it was not formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific  
questions, so one could not readily set it next to the questionnaire  
responses by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and  
development of the synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the way  
they're asking us to?

Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly  
but workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of  
the questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined  
respond to taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we  
can try to boil them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday- 
Wednesday?

There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might  
stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got  
the time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people  
might pick and choose the bits of particular interest to them.  And  
the result would be more reflective of the various views here and more  
responsive to the points the secretariat needs to address.

Just a thought,

Bill

PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer  
forwarded.
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it  
> in the Tunis Agenda?
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms?  
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/ 
> government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out  
> for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory  
> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year  
> mandate, and why/why not?
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what  
> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,  
> functioning and processes?
> 7. Do you have any other comments?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  8 10:02:44 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:02:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu>

Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start with 
all questions at the same time.
Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for question 6?
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger
> 
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth 
>> Graham's previous suggestions:
> 
> My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant 
> concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious 
> why we'd put it back on the table as a starting point.  In any event it 
> was not formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, 
> so one could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by 
> other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the 
> synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the way they're asking us to?
> 
> Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but 
> workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the 
> questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to 
> taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to 
> boil them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
> 
> There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might 
> stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the 
> time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick 
> and choose the bits of particular interest to them.  And the result 
> would be more reflective of the various views here and more responsive 
> to the points the secretariat needs to address.
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Bill
> 
> PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer 
> forwarded.
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
>> processes?
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 10:42:38 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:12:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>

Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can 
submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of 
them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start 
discussion on that question.

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?"

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.


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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 11:48:48 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:18:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@192.168.1.2> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
	 <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907080848ydc00346r50cca611515fa66e@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it
impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted
as a catalyst for change?

IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of
Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity
involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as
also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to
experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are
becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable'
equality is largely an IGF achievement.

As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process has
not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point
that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant:


(from the meeting transcript)

IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
could be classified and identified, grouped.  And that could become
some kind of a reference paper.  It could become a reference document
for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy.  This is the idea
of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with this or
in agreement with this."  And that could guide them and may not comfort
them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
idea of what is happening in the real world.

Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in
complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not reflect
the mood of the IGF.

So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and report on
the mood of IGF.  Thank you.


 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz





On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start with all
> questions at the same time. Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text
> could be used for question 6?
> jeanette
>
> William Drake wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Ginger
>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth
>>> Graham's previous suggestions:
>>>
>>>
>> My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant
>> concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious why
>> we'd put it back on the table as a starting point.  In any event it was not
>> formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one
>> could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by other
>> stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the synthesis
>> paper.  Why not just do it the way they're asking us to?
>>
>> Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but
>> workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the
>> questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to
>> taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to boil
>> them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
>>
>> There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might
>> stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the
>> time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick and
>> choose the bits of particular interest to them.  And the result would be
>> more reflective of the various views here and more responsive to the points
>> the secretariat needs to address.
>>
>> Just a thought,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer
>> forwarded.
>>
>>
>>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the
>>> Tunis Agenda?
>>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
>>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
>>> acted as a catalyst for change?
>>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG),
>>> Secretariat and open consultations?
>>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>>> processes?
>>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________ You received
> this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090708/d6f1be21/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 vanda at uol.com.br  Wed Jul  8 11:57:29 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:57:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br>

Dear all 
As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to define
(where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America)
regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
communities.
 I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the
implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since
implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage IGF
regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
Best to all, 
Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
&  IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464


-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger
Paque'
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can 
submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of 
them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start 
discussion on that question.

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?"

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.


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

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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 12:55:58 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:25:58 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br>
Message-ID: <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>

Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to 
Question 6, stating your point?

Vanda Scartezini wrote:
> Dear all 
> As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to define
> (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America)
> regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
> specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
> have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
> communities.
>  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
> importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the
> implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since
> implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage IGF
> regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
> Best to all, 
> Vanda Scartezini
> POLO Consultores Associados
> &  IT Trend
> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
> Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger
> Paque'
> Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
> Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can 
> submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of 
> them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start 
> discussion on that question.
>
> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
> processes?"
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
> but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
> based economic and social development.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 12:57:48 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:27:48 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - Question 3 (impact)
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907080848ydc00346r50cca611515fa66e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@192.168.1.2> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>	 <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> <fecfce260907080848ydc00346r50cca611515fa66e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com>

Shiva, great that you are addressing this question. Could you please 
synthesize your thoughts into a proposed text to answer Question 3? Thanks.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello,
>  
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>  
> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of 
> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity 
> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory 
> pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an 
> opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process 
> of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of 
> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>  
> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making 
> process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at 
> the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting 
> may be relevant: 
>  
>
>     (from the meeting transcript)
>      
>     IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
>     But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
>     These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
>     deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
>     session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
>     could be classified and identified, grouped.  And that could become
>     some kind of a reference paper.  It could become a reference document
>     for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
>     to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy.  This is the
>     idea
>     of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
>     this or
>     in agreement with this."  And that could guide them and may not
>     comfort
>     them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
>     idea of what is happening in the real world. 
>      
>     Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in
>     complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
>     reflect
>     the mood of the IGF.
>      
>     So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
>     Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
>     report on
>     the mood of IGF.  Thank you.
>
>  
>  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>  
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>  
>
>     Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start
>     with all questions at the same time.
>     Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for
>     question 6?
>     jeanette
>      
>     William Drake wrote:
>      
>
>         Hi Ginger
>          
>         On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>          
>
>             Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's
>             and Garth Graham's previous suggestions:
>              
>
>         My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed
>         significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it,
>         so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a
>         starting point.  In any event it was not formulated as
>         responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one
>         could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses
>         by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and
>         development of the synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the
>         way they're asking us to?
>          
>         Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an
>         ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread
>         for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who
>         are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses
>         by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few
>         coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
>          
>         There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this
>         might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt
>         anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all
>         points, but people might pick and choose the bits of
>         particular interest to them.  And the result would be more
>         reflective of the various views here and more responsive to
>         the points the secretariat needs to address.
>          
>         Just a thought,
>          
>         Bill
>          
>         PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no
>         longer forwarded.
>          
>
>             1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set
>             out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
>             2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>             3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or
>             indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder
>             group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst
>             for change?
>             4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks
>             set out for it, including the functioning of the
>             Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and
>             open consultations?
>             5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial
>             five-year mandate, and why/why not?
>             6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>             improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>             methods, functioning and processes?
>             7. Do you have any other comments?
>              
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         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
>      
>
>  
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 12:59:50 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:29:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907080959t709d7e68p18e20aed60929af4@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger,

Great idea. Splitting the task into points to be attended to by various
participants. Makes it easy. Would work.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
> Question 6, stating your point?
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
>> Dear all As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal
>> is to define
>> (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America)
>> regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
>> specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
>> have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
>> communities.
>>  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
>> importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the
>> implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since
>> implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage
>> IGF
>> regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>> Best to all, Vanda Scartezini
>> POLO Consultores Associados
>> &  IT Trend
>> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>> Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08,
>> 2009 11:43 AM
>> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger
>> Paque'
>> Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>>
>> Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can submit
>> answers to some questions without necessarily including all of them, I ask
>> that anyone who is interested open a thread and start discussion on that
>> question.
>>
>> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?"
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>>  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
>> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
>> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
>> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090708/31ba5274/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  Wed Jul  8 13:02:08 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:32:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - Question 3 (impact)
In-Reply-To: <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@192.168.1.2> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
	 <D5016323-8EAF-457F-8996-1B9342D79303@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu>
	 <fecfce260907080848ydc00346r50cca611515fa66e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907081002sabb38c2v520bd5aa67dabe82@mail.gmail.com>

After a day? I am right now going through a program with the Diplo
foundation where my course instructor has assigned me two essay questions to
be answered by noon tomorrow ! If I don't do that I will be ranked useless.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shiva, great that you are addressing this question. Could you please
> synthesize your thoughts into a proposed text to answer Question 3? Thanks.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>  3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
>> acted as a catalyst for change?
>>  IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of
>> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity
>> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as
>> also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to
>> experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are
>> becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable'
>> equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>>  As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process
>> has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point
>> that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant:
>>    (from the meeting transcript)
>>        IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to
>> recommend.
>>    But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
>>    These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
>>    deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
>>    session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
>>    could be classified and identified, grouped.  And that could become
>>    some kind of a reference paper.  It could become a reference document
>>    for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
>>    to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy.  This is the
>>    idea
>>    of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
>>    this or
>>    in agreement with this."  And that could guide them and may not
>>    comfort
>>    them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
>>    idea of what is happening in the real world.        Right now the
>> decisions are taken by government, by businesses in
>>    complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
>>    reflect
>>    the mood of the IGF.
>>        So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
>>    Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
>>    report on
>>    the mood of IGF.  Thank you.
>>
>>   Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>  facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>      On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start
>>    with all questions at the same time.
>>    Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for
>>    question 6?
>>    jeanette
>>        William Drake wrote:
>>
>>        Hi Ginger
>>                On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>            Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's
>>            and Garth Graham's previous suggestions:
>>
>>        My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed
>>        significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it,
>>        so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a
>>        starting point.  In any event it was not formulated as
>>        responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one
>>        could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses
>>        by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and
>>        development of the synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the
>>        way they're asking us to?
>>                Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses,
>> an
>>        ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread
>>        for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who
>>        are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses
>>        by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few
>>        coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
>>                There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this
>>        might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt
>>        anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all
>>        points, but people might pick and choose the bits of
>>        particular interest to them.  And the result would be more
>>        reflective of the various views here and more responsive to
>>        the points the secretariat needs to address.
>>                Just a thought,
>>                Bill
>>                PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is
>> no
>>        longer forwarded.
>>
>>            1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set
>>            out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
>>            2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>            3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or
>>            indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder
>>            group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst
>>            for change?
>>            4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks
>>            set out for it, including the functioning of the
>>            Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and
>>            open consultations?
>>            5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial
>>            five-year mandate, and why/why not?
>>            6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>            improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>>            methods, functioning and processes?
>>            7. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>        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
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090708/742410a3/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 anriette at apc.org  Wed Jul  8 16:04:14 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:04:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] APC looking for a global ICT policy advocacy
 coordinator
Message-ID: <1247083454.5003.55.camel@anriette-laptop>

Hello all

Apologies for using this list for a job posting  - especially after Bill
Drake's recent admonition :)

APC is looking for someone to coordinate global ICT policy networking
and advocacy. Initially this is a one-year contract to work on a
specific funded project, but there is a potential for it to be renewed
based on performance and availability of funds.

See the attached call for applications.

Best

Anriette


-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APC_global_policy_advocacy_ coordinator_06072009.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45627 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090708/681b50e6/attachment.pdf>

From karl at cavebear.com  Wed Jul  8 16:51:06 2009
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:51:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>

On 07/08/2009 06:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul
> 2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>
>> When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America
>> fell off the net.
>
> (Although some not until a fortnight later).

You should read the NANOG reports on what happened.  It was not DNS 
related.  It was more a matter that at that time Africa and S. America 
were net-topologically dependencies of a few buildings in NYC.  When the 
power went out, or emergency generators ran dry, or air filters got so 
clogged that machines just died, then the NYC end of the data links went 
down (or the switches/routers went down) and Africa and S. America felt 
the brunt.

The point of this is that on the net seemingly distant events can have 
nearby effects for good or ill.

> Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg
> dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a
> test of global resilience and redundancy?

If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator of 
the root zone that accepts a given TLD.  If a sloppy root system wants 
to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can know about 
this, then that would be OK.  But for root zone operator such ICANN 
which promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be 
rather higher.

(Note I'm distinguishing "root zone operator" from "root server 
operator".  ICANN operates a root zone.  There are other root zones, 
albeit they have a history of being rather weakly run.)

> I would guess that avoiding bad data would be a priority (just like
> avoiding getting water in your brake fluid is). Brakes are still a good
> idea!

You bet!  Just yesterday afternoon I had the "lovely" experience of 
flying sideways at 120+kph down the highway with the antilock brakes and 
stability control mechanisms in full play -

>> Bad data isn't always immediately detected.
>
> If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad
> data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly quickly.

Perhaps.  Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other 
infrastructures.  How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to 
report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com?  Or what if 
the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com?

I've watched so-called network repair people.  Often they don't really 
know what they are doing and couldn't analyze a DNS issue from a 
connectivity issue.

(Apropos the degree of diagnostic clue in some network diagnostic 
people: My father and grandfather repaired TV sets back in the days when 
they could be repaired rather than discarded.  It was easy to tell which 
TV repairman were competent from those who were dummies.  The competent 
people had a small mirror that they could prop-up so that they could see 
the screen while they worked at the back of the TV.  The dummies ran 
back and forth from front to back to front to back ...)

> And I don't expect tlds like .com to allow bad data into their records
> in the first place.

That's what SUN thought when their entire software repository was wiped 
out because of "can't happen" error happened to un-checksumed UDP (gee, 
isn't the Ethernet CRC adequate?) as they flowed over the bus between 
the NIC card and memory and thence to the disk.

I've recently observed some issues in which large TCP based data 
transfers were being corrupted because at high flow rates certain error 
checking did not occur deep down at the device driver level.

Errors do creep into data.



>> That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate.  [To assure technical stability.]
>
> The root server project you imply, was explicitly in their mandate? Or
> just the kind of thing you personally would have expected a more
> generally worded mandate to include? (A genuine question).

ICANN is a trade guild that runs a particular marketplace around its 
root zone file.

Other root zone file operators would run a marketplace around their root 
zone files.

Those other operators ought, in my opinion, to be able to establish 
their own rules based on what they feel customers want to buy.

Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we 
view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use.  But for some 
short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for.  If one 
only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then 
there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid 
building things like data escrow and backups.

The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the 
internet should be onto the DNS.  It is a very unimaginative view and 
ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas.

Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet 
would never have been born.


>> It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a
>> usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as
>> to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some
>> TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather
>> proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere
>> mortal.
>
> There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100
> websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS
> data, or just the zone files from each tld?

Website data is easier to obtain than DNS data.  Websites are often 
filled with web bugs ranging from one-bit-pixels as used by 
www.whitehouse.gov (in utter violation of their published privacy 
policy) to things like Google's "urchin".  (And there is also website 
tracking via Adobe Flash cookies.)

So website data can be bought.  DNS query data may be for sale, but its 
not quite as open a marketplace.

(Although I'd bet money that my (US) government is paying or coercing 
companies such as Verisign to let the government monitor domain name 
query activity for "national security" purposes."  And I don't doubt 
that the root servers operated by the US government and US military 
establishment are being data mined.)

		--karl--


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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jul  9 00:34:40 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:34:40 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>

On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what  
> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,  
> functioning and processes?"
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- 
> unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the  
> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review  
> of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to  
> foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country  
> voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,  
> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who  
> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those  
> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance  
> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to  
> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to  
> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working  
> as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a  
> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social  
> development.


This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of  
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in  
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.   
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the  
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an  
isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,  
perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet  
governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work  
and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional  
fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a  
capstone for the work done elsewhere.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new  
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce  
more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In  
the past various such innovations have been considered - including  
speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but  
always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due  
to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may  
be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF  
as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value  
to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the  
production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 03:12:14 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:42:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Coordinators,

As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting
the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to
travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at
least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team
organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for
distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4
hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels
with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers
invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well
treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as
unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and
International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the
IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not
the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have
a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling
to the IGF.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>  "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?"
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>>  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
>> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
>> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
>> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>
>
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005,
> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.  For
> example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the
> Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face
> meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a
> leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the
> IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between
> meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face
> meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures
> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible
> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various
> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated
> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
> representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is -
> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it
> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting
> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public
> policy issues.
>
> --
> JEREMY MALCOLM
> Project Coordinator
> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> Mob: +60 12 282 5895
> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
> www.consumersinternational.org
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning
> voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we
> are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and
> empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit
> www.consumersinternational.org.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/a74e0586/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 06:56:04 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:26:04 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com>

Thanks Shiva and Jeremy.

Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for 
your consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is 
asking for new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this 
should not be interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the 
way forward.

Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions 
are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet 
everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, 
could you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) 
as well? Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get 
ahead on the final wording while discussion is still going on.

On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two 
things that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and 
inclusion rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? 
b) the terms are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or 
being less specific about business class flights and top hotels might 
make this proposal more acceptable.

We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going 
on in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for 
participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If 
your primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there 
points from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to 
reinforce its strength?

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?"

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
 For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the 
past various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a 
Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, 
team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for 
distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess 
of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended 
hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel 
speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to 
be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - 
$700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded 
NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would 
enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from 
Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those 
participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have 
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.



Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Coordinators,
>
> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of 
> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( 
> as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have 
> implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may 
> have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 
> lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may 
> have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and 
> business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel 
> rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with 
> incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers 
> invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well 
> treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 
> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well 
> funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a 
> fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the 
> IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would 
> also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing 
> to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>         "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>         improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>         methods, functioning and processes?"
>
>         Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>         near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe
>         that the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>         inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>         needed in a review of the current process could be spent in
>         the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely
>         heard and developing country voices through, but not limited
>         to, remote participation.
>
>         And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>         people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>         who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or
>         migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open
>         access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>         those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as
>         ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
>         limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists
>         in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support
>         of broad based economic and social development.
>
>
>
>     This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations
>     of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or
>     inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional
>     intergovernmental summit.  For example, it may not be most
>     inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
>     Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face
>     meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should
>     take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
>     institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
>     engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional
>     fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
>     capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
>     Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>     structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to
>     produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
>     deliberation.  In the past various such innovations have been
>     considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and
>     roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
>     going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some
>     stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all
>     - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will
>     suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the
>     international community by adopting mechanisms for the production
>     of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>
>     -- 
>     JEREMY MALCOLM
>     Project Coordinator
>     CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>     for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    
>
>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>     7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>     TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>     Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>     Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>     www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>
>     Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>     campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member
>     organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful
>     international consumer movement to help protect and empower
>     consumers everywhere. For more information, visit
>     www.consumersinternational.org
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul  9 07:04:39 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:04:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu>

Hi,

the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it 
important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job 
(independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available 
for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed 
countries.

The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is 
not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about 
how we phrase such matters.

jeanette

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Coordinators,
> 
> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of 
> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( 
> as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have 
> implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have 
> to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead 
> participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to 
> cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business 
> class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 
> days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals 
> considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be 
> high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would 
> require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal 
> support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International 
> Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring 
> in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal 
> IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen 
> intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to 
> the IGF.
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
> 
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
>         "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>         improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>         functioning and processes?"
> 
>         Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>         near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>         the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>         inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>         needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
>         search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
>         and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>         remote participation.
> 
>         And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>         people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>         who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
>         those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
>         governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
>         looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>         responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
>         and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
>         the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
>         economic and social development.
> 
> 
> 
>     This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>     structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
>     in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
>     summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
>     for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
>     an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
>     perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
>     governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
>     work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
>     regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
>     of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
> 
>     Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>     structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
>     more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
>      In the past various such innovations have been considered -
>     including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
>     discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
>     with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
>     representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
>     is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>     long term it it does not prove its value to the international
>     community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
>     statements on Internet public policy issues.
> 
>     -- 
>     JEREMY MALCOLM
>     Project Coordinator
>     CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>     for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    
> 
>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>     7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>     TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>     Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>     Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>     www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
> 
>     Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>     campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
>     in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
>     movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
>     information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Jul  9 07:22:46 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:52:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy
In-Reply-To: <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>
	 <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907090422mf43585ex2df6f82f3b3130b0@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger and All,


Will rewrite the text building in the flexibility, including suggestion of
grants for participants, will do that by Monday as also contribute to the
overall statment under point 6 (apart from working on point 4)

Shiva.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Shiva and Jeremy.
>
> Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for your
> consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is asking for
> new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this should not be
> interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the way forward.
>
> Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions
> are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet
> everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, could
> you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) as well?
> Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get ahead on the
> final wording while discussion is still going on.
>
> On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two things
> that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and inclusion
> rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? b) the terms
> are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or being less
> specific about business class flights and top hotels might make this
> proposal more acceptable.
>
> We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going on
> in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for
> participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If your
> primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there points
> from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to reinforce
> its strength?
>
> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> processes?"
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
> remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005,
> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example,
> it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in
> a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the
> book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN,
> in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
> capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures
> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible
> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various
> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated
> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
> representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is -
> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it
> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting
> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public
> policy issues.
>
> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend
> unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business
> Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin
> with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about
> 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have
> to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business
> class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in
> one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact
> that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals
> who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find
> between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business,
> Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the
> UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to
> the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also
> help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels
> but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello Coordinators,
>>
>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of
>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as
>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied
>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a
>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel
>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class
>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in
>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two
>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the
>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $
>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs
>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable
>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are
>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who
>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in
>> traveling to the IGF.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>
>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:
>> jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>    On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>        "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>        improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>>        methods, functioning and processes?"
>>
>>        Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>        near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe
>>        that the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>>        inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>>        needed in a review of the current process could be spent in
>>        the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely
>>        heard and developing country voices through, but not limited
>>        to, remote participation.
>>
>>        And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>        people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>>        who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or
>>        migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open
>>        access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>>        those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as
>>        ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
>>        limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists
>>        in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support
>>        of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>>
>>
>>    This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations
>>    of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or
>>    inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional
>>    intergovernmental summit.  For example, it may not be most
>>    inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
>>    Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face
>>    meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should
>>    take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
>>    institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
>>    engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional
>>    fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
>>    capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>
>>    Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>>    structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to
>>    produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
>>    deliberation.  In the past various such innovations have been
>>    considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and
>>    roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
>>    going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some
>>    stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all
>>    - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will
>>    suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the
>>    international community by adopting mechanisms for the production
>>    of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>
>>    --    JEREMY MALCOLM
>>    Project Coordinator
>>    CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>>    for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>>    7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>>    TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>    Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>    Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>>    Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>>    www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>
>>    Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>>    campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member
>>    organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful
>>    international consumer movement to help protect and empower
>>    consumers everywhere. For more information, visit
>>    www.consumersinternational.org
>>    <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>>
>>
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    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
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/6e98da5c/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  Thu Jul  9 07:23:20 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:53:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907090422mf43585ex2df6f82f3b3130b0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>
	 <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com>
	 <fecfce260907090422mf43585ex2df6f82f3b3130b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907090423j7df42231o3d2f20a0add82df9@mail.gmail.com>

sorry, (apart from point 3)

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hello Ginger and All,
>
>
> Will rewrite the text building in the flexibility, including suggestion of
> grants for participants, will do that by Monday as also contribute to the
> overall statment under point 6 (apart from working on point 4)
>
> Shiva.
>
>   On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Shiva and Jeremy.
>>
>> Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for your
>> consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is asking for
>> new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this should not be
>> interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the way forward.
>>
>> Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions
>> are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet
>> everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, could
>> you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) as well?
>> Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get ahead on the
>> final wording while discussion is still going on.
>>
>> On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two things
>> that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and inclusion
>> rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? b) the terms
>> are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or being less
>> specific about business class flights and top hotels might make this
>> proposal more acceptable.
>>
>> We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going
>> on in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for
>> participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If your
>> primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there points
>> from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to reinforce
>> its strength?
>>
>> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?"
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>>  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
>> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
>> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
>> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005,
>> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example,
>> it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
>> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in
>> a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the
>> book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN,
>> in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
>> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
>> capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>
>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures
>> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible
>> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various
>> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated
>> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
>> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
>> representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is -
>> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it
>> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting
>> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public
>> policy issues.
>>
>> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
>> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend
>> unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business
>> Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin
>> with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about
>> 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have
>> to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business
>> class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in
>> one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact
>> that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals
>> who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find
>> between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business,
>> Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the
>> UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to
>> the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also
>> help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels
>> but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Coordinators,
>>>
>>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of
>>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as
>>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied
>>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a
>>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel
>>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class
>>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in
>>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two
>>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the
>>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
>>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $
>>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs
>>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable
>>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are
>>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who
>>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in
>>> traveling to the IGF.
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:
>>> jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>        "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>>        improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>>>        methods, functioning and processes?"
>>>
>>>        Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>>        near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe
>>>        that the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>>>        inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>>>        needed in a review of the current process could be spent in
>>>        the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely
>>>        heard and developing country voices through, but not limited
>>>        to, remote participation.
>>>
>>>        And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>>        people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>>>        who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or
>>>        migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open
>>>        access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
>>>        those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as
>>>        ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
>>>        limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists
>>>        in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support
>>>        of broad based economic and social development.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations
>>>    of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or
>>>    inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional
>>>    intergovernmental summit.  For example, it may not be most
>>>    inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
>>>    Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face
>>>    meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should
>>>    take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
>>>    institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
>>>    engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional
>>>    fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
>>>    capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>>
>>>    Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>>>    structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to
>>>    produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
>>>    deliberation.  In the past various such innovations have been
>>>    considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and
>>>    roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
>>>    going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some
>>>    stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all
>>>    - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will
>>>    suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the
>>>    international community by adopting mechanisms for the production
>>>    of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>>
>>>    --    JEREMY MALCOLM
>>>    Project Coordinator
>>>    CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>>>    for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>>    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>>>    7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>>>    TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>    Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>    Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>>>    Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>>>    www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org
>>> >
>>>
>>>    Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>>>    campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member
>>>    organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful
>>>    international consumer movement to help protect and empower
>>>    consumers everywhere. For more information, visit
>>>    www.consumersinternational.org
>>>    <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>>>
>>>
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/3c39545b/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jul  9 08:48:13 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <179127.68538.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

How about you do the funding part by: Suggesting a person whos job it is to raise funds.
 
Darnedest thing but there is a reason the above model works for 99% of all NGOs.
 
 
(funding for developing nations is a bust.  Participants who would be energized to participate here would be in the top five to ten percentile of their respective nations' income and education bracket   ----    Those folks 99% of the time "need" a lot less funding than a non-tenured professor from Hong Kong)

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:


From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 11:04 AM


Hi,

the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.

The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters.

jeanette

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Coordinators,
> 
> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF
 to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
> 
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
>         "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>         improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>         functioning and processes?"
> 
>         Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>         near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>         the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>         inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>         needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
>         search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
>         and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>         remote participation.
> 
>         And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>         people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>         who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
>         those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
>         governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
>         looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>         responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
>         and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
>         the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
>         economic and social development.
> 
> 
> 
>     This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>     structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
>     in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
>     summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
>     for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
>     an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
>     perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
>     governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
>     work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
>     regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
>     of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
> 
>     Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>     structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
>     more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
>      In the past various such innovations have been considered -
>     including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
>     discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
>     with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
>     representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
>     is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>     long term it it does not prove its value to the international
>     community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
>     statements on Internet public policy issues.
> 
>     --     JEREMY MALCOLM
>     Project Coordinator
>     CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>     for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    
>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>     7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>     TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>     Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>     Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>     www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
> 
>     Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>     campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
>     in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
>     movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
>     information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
To be removed from the list, 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/20090709/8234aa11/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jul  9 09:22:10 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 06:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <870228.26198.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>



--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
 
Bravo! 
(However I must caution: When building a structure, the foundation must be solid, built with the strongest materials that will hold up walls, doors and layers(floors) that are to be built on top. But it is seldom useful to begin to invite guests in for tea, prior to finishing the structure.)
 
Of course the whole neighborhood and travellers will be welcome and guest rooms and plenty of seats at the table will be fashioned accordingly. But I would suggest moving slower with outreach than with building.

> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?"
> 
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.
> 
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.


This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

--JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

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

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/b5d50fe2/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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 13:04:03 2009
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:04:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1161f110907091004h69ef02cbna1847bc2d7f32e3c@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with the points in Ginger's post that started this thread, and
appreciate this beginning.

I'd emphasize live remote participation, and archiving for later access.

I agree that a Secretariat should be adequately funded.

I have concerns about funding beyond that.  The more central are
scholarships and funding, the more centralization, and I think the
less level the field.  I do realize one could make the same argument
of a non-level field about individuals and groups and countries that
can manage their own funding, but in my experience central funding
skews a gathering.

I'd rather lean towards 1) hosting meetings with 360 days notice so
that those of us with airline miles can try for awards and those who
need to be included in annual travel budgets for their groups can
apply, 2) hosting meetings at sites where there is airline competition
and routing choices so that airfares are lower, and 3) hosting
meetings at locations that are less costly (in the US, there are
retreat and conference centers that are less urban).  I've found
Geneva, Tunis, Athens, Rio sites remote, convenient accommodations
expensive, inexpensive food hard to find.  I've paid for these trips
myself and I'm not sure how many others self-pay - perhaps this isn't
representative.

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 13:25:38 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:55:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110907091004h69ef02cbna1847bc2d7f32e3c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <b1161f110907091004h69ef02cbna1847bc2d7f32e3c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A562812.5090502@gmail.com>

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for 
Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.

Sylvia, I like your points. Would you please post a possible addition to 
the text to reflect your new suggestions about timing and location, 
while others opine? We can leave it to Shiva to re-phrase funding to 
reflect the group's (including Sylvia's) comments on that section.

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?"

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the 
past various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a 
Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, 
team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for 
distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess 
of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended 
hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel 
speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to 
be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - 
$700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded 
NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would 
enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from 
Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those 
participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have 
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.




Sylvia Caras wrote:
> I agree with the points in Ginger's post that started this thread, and
> appreciate this beginning.
>
> I'd emphasize live remote participation, and archiving for later access.
>
> I agree that a Secretariat should be adequately funded.
>
> I have concerns about funding beyond that.  The more central are
> scholarships and funding, the more centralization, and I think the
> less level the field.  I do realize one could make the same argument
> of a non-level field about individuals and groups and countries that
> can manage their own funding, but in my experience central funding
> skews a gathering.
>
> I'd rather lean towards 1) hosting meetings with 360 days notice so
> that those of us with airline miles can try for awards and those who
> need to be included in annual travel budgets for their groups can
> apply, 2) hosting meetings at sites where there is airline competition
> and routing choices so that airfares are lower, and 3) hosting
> meetings at locations that are less costly (in the US, there are
> retreat and conference centers that are less urban).  I've found
> Geneva, Tunis, Athens, Rio sites remote, convenient accommodations
> expensive, inexpensive food hard to find.  I've paid for these trips
> myself and I'm not sure how many others self-pay - perhaps this isn't
> representative.
>
> Sylvia
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Jul 10 03:58:43 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:58:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] G 8 FYI
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
 <b1161f110907091004h69ef02cbna1847bc2d7f32e3c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719303@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: IPR Report 2009.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 311544 bytes
Desc: IPR Report 2009.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/7a0a9aa3/attachment.pdf>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jul 10 06:10:45 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:10:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A5506BA.9020301 at cavebear.com>, at 13:51:06 on Wed, 8 Jul 
2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>On 07/08/2009 06:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul
>> 2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>>
>>> When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America
>>> fell off the net.
>>
>> (Although some not until a fortnight later).
>
>You should read the NANOG reports on what happened.

I was reading the list at the time, and also speaking in person to many 
of the posters.

>It was not DNS related.

The major issue was obviously connectivity of users to websites - DNS 
shouldn't have a widespread single-point-of-failure in NY; but there 
were also some countries which unexpected "disappeared" a fortnight 
later when their cached DNS entries expired.

>It was more a matter that at that time Africa and S. America were 
>net-topologically dependencies of a few buildings in NYC.

That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But 
international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF 
issue though).

>> Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg
>> dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a
>> test of global resilience and redundancy?
>
>If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator of 
>the root zone that accepts a given TLD.  If a sloppy root system wants 
>to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can know 
>about this,

That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are 
they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here 
about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not 
the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to 
boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS?

>then that would be OK.  But for root zone operator such ICANN which 
>promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be rather 
>higher.

And you propose ICANN be stricter about redundancy of the DNS? That may 
be necessary, I'm not sure. Of course, the biggest hurdle is the 
somewhat arms length relationship between ICANN and the cctlds - the 
ones which are in some cases probably most likely to be run on a 
shoestring.

As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between 
using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant 
whose content I want to access.

>> If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad
>> data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly quickly.
>
>Perhaps.  Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other 
>infrastructures.  How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to 
>report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com?  Or what if 
>the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com?

You have to expect that a failure in .com will be noticed by people 
other than those VoIP customers. When it's fixed it will hopefully be 
fixed for all of them. (The same sort of thing happens when a power cut 
takes out a GSM base-station. You can't call anyone to tell them, but 
the lights probably also went out somewhere with a landline phone, who 
gets busy reporting it on everyone's behalf).

>Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we 
>view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use.  But for some 
>short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for.  If one 
>only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then 
>there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid 
>building things like data escrow and backups.

That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was 
wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".

>The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the 
>internet should be onto the DNS.  It is a very unimaginative view and 
>ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas.
>
>Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet 
>would never have been born.

I'm struggling with that, because the original framework of 
.com/.org/.gov etc, plus cctlds dates from way before ICANN.

Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem 
to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds, and let's not forget 
IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in 
introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public.

>>> It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a
>>> usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as
>>> to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some
>>> TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather
>>> proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere
>>> mortal.
>>
>> There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100
>> websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS
>> data, or just the zone files from each tld?
>
>Website data is easier to obtain than DNS data.  Websites are often 
>filled with web bugs ranging from one-bit-pixels as used by 
>www.whitehouse.gov (in utter violation of their published privacy 
>policy) to things like Google's "urchin".  (And there is also website 
>tracking via Adobe Flash cookies.)
>
>So website data can be bought.

And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X 
popular websites" for your DNS DVD, and for the purposes of that DVD 
ignore the "long tail". If you manage to facilitate 98% of Internet 
traffic via this DVD, isn't that good enough as an emergency measure?

-- 
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  Fri Jul 10 06:44:22 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:14:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net>

Quick comments, will read in detail and come back again.

i support Bill's opposition to the now bracketed part which is giving a 
new definition of IG. I also oppose use of any phrase like 'Internet 
model of IG' in the earlier para.

I would have liked to be more constructive and offer text here in the 
last few days, but I have been for a few different reasons been off-work.

However, as I earlier suggested there a lot of IGC text of IGF review in 
the last year or so and it will be good to pick chunks form it since it 
already has support. I of course support the parts on inclusiveness and 
participation levels in the text below.

I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF 
before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It 
may get read by important players as they prepare and present their view 
on IGF reform.



parminder

Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF 
> Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this 
> email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to be 
> included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus 
> statement by July 15th.
>
> In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest 
> problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement 
> is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's 
> work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be 
> supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. 
> Please take a look and comment again.
>
> b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask 
> that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post 
> proposed text.
>
> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth 
> Graham's previous suggestions:
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes 
> that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet 
> Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process 
> by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder
> principle.
>
> [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil society. 
> this principle has not been fully implemented since many of those with 
> an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the 
> Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this 
> process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette Hoffman] 
> The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues:
>
> 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum
> driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is 
> two points in one and should be separated]
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster
> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
> support of broad based economic and social development.
>
>
> 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens
> understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,
> particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.
>
> [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we
> believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG
> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than
> a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil
> society, “in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are
> agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The
> development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms,
> rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
> evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by 
> Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it 
> much more specific]
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/d1fa37fc/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 07:07:20 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:37:20 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net>
References: <p06240819c67a23c284f4@[192.168.1.2]> <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A5720E8.5090500@gmail.com>

Thanks for this input, Parminder.

The whole Number 2 from below has been removed in the current version, 
and the current version is now included in an answer to Question No. 6.

I am hoping for more proposed text today and tomorrow. I will also 
review our previous statements this weekend, and propose text by Sunday. 
However, it would be good to have more ideas from list members too.

Sylvia and Shiva will propose text on their suggestions shortly.

Best,
Ginger



Parminder wrote:
> Quick comments, will read in detail and come back again.
>
> i support Bill's opposition to the now bracketed part which is giving 
> a new definition of IG. I also oppose use of any phrase like 'Internet 
> model of IG' in the earlier para.
>
> I would have liked to be more constructive and offer text here in the 
> last few days, but I have been for a few different reasons been off-work.
>
> However, as I earlier suggested there a lot of IGC text of IGF review 
> in the last year or so and it will be good to pick chunks form it 
> since it already has support. I of course support the parts on 
> inclusiveness and participation levels in the text below.
>
> I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF 
> before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It 
> may get read by important players as they prepare and present their 
> view on IGF reform.
>
>
>
> parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF 
>> Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this 
>> email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to 
>> be included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus 
>> statement by July 15th.
>>
>> In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest 
>> problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement 
>> is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's 
>> work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be 
>> supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. 
>> Please take a look and comment again.
>>
>> b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask 
>> that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post 
>> proposed text.
>>
>> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth 
>> Graham's previous suggestions:
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of 
>> the principle of
>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes 
>> that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet 
>> Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>> process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> multi-stakeholder
>> principle.
>>
>> [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil 
>> society. this principle has not been fully implemented since many of 
>> those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and 
>> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been 
>> engaged in this process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette 
>> Hoffman] 
>> The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues:
>>
>> 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
>> the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is 
>> two points in one and should be separated]
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
>> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
>> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster
>> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
>> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
>> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes 
>> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
>> support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>>
>> 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens
>> understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,
>> particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.
>>
>> [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we
>> believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG
>> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than
>> a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil
>> society, “in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are
>> agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The
>> development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms,
>> rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
>> evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by 
>> Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it 
>> much more specific]
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 07:35:28 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <381177.12413.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.
 
In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.


And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/5745a838/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 07:41:58 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
Message-ID: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

If international connectivity fell in the woods and there was no one around to hear it, would it still make a sound?  Roland, everything that is international connectivity - is - because of it's use. Names and addresses and numbers provide for that use. Hence the ANN. We really do not want connectivity so dudes and dudettes can stand around and say "cool".

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:


That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF issue though).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/26d00595/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  Fri Jul 10 07:43:53 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:43:53 +0500
Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws
 - Pakistan
Message-ID: <701af9f70907100443t5fdfdea5p78873e6d66c1085c@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information
Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency,
stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in
‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’.

The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat
endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the
ordinance.

Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated
the fundamental rights of the people.

She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory
powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that
it could take years to prove the offence.

She said under the current law search and seizure could take place
anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems.

The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the
computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false
evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged.

Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO,
she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for
investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008.

Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of
additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double
punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing
damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under
relevant sections and under the PECO.

The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property
rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such
property loss were stated in the law.

Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training
programmes were required for investigation agencies.  “A law is only
required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere
e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added.

-- 

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  Fri Jul 10 07:50:55 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:50:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <381177.12413.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B041A334BE564D2DB9B4F44441F7DD5D@userPC>

Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... 
 
Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up
over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a
special case...
 
M

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM
To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start



Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and
cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get
the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is
empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will
lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative
experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual
or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing,
it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what
will make us feel good.
 
In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go
out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and
politics.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for
Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.


And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/a301e308/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 07:56:49 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber
 laws - Pakistan
Message-ID: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Please explain, perhaps why I am wrong.
 
Enacted laws still have to operate within and under constitutional, procedural and court mandated protections of individual rights. I assume there is nothing in this law that says all of those safeguards are suspended. It sounds like you are saying there is a new martial law in place regarding computers. To my knowledge this is not the case.

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws - Pakistan
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:43 AM


http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information
Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency,
stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in
‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’.

The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat
endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the
ordinance.

Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated
the fundamental rights of the people.

She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory
powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that
it could take years to prove the offence.

She said under the current law search and seizure could take place
anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems.

The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the
computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false
evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged.

Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO,
she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for
investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008.

Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of
additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double
punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing
damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under
relevant sections and under the PECO.

The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property
rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such
property loss were stated in the law.

Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training
programmes were required for investigation agencies.  “A law is only
required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere
e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added.

-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/8c170ba2/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 08:03:38 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <759502.37198.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our net.
 
Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power.

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "'Sylvia Caras'" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "'Ginger Paque'" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM



Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... 
 
Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case...
 
M


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM
To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start






Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.
 
In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.


And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/32ac4fdf/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 08:11:52 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments:  IGC statement?
Message-ID: <591561.54664.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

This would be the epitome of open and transparent*;

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It may get read by important players as they prepare and present their view on IGF reform.



parminder 

* Unless as it looked at first, a "not" was missing? Certainly not?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/04c8d244/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  Fri Jul 10 08:19:58 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:19:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <759502.37198.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B0F1F73DDBF342829AD71E3574FE540C@userPC>

Who is "we"...
 
M

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia Caras'; 'Ginger
Paque'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start



Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is only for
those who are governed.  I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not
and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and
see who we can catch in our net.
 
Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically
intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international
aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas.  To be
governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of
extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power.

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:



From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'"
<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "'Sylvia Caras'" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>,
"'Ginger Paque'" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM


Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... 
 
Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up
over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a
special case...
 
M

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM
To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start



Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and
cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get
the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is
empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will
lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative
experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual
or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing,
it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what
will make us feel good.
 
In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go
out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and
politics.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for
Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.


And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.c
psr.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/20090710/1e1f55a8/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 Jul 10 09:33:28 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:33:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <n5IjLYSoM0VKFANN@perry.co.uk>

In message <264965.18403.qm at web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 04:41:58 on 
Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes
>If international connectivity fell in the woods and there was no one 
>around to hear it, would it still make a sound? 

That question makes little sense because if no-one notices the lack of a 
particular slice of connectivity, they don't need it to be there.

>Roland, everything that is international connectivity - is - because of 
>it's use.

But there are many people monitoring pretty much the whole Internet 
backbone, at a BGP level as well as the cables. Little will go 
un-noticed.

>Names and addresses and numbers provide for that use.

They are more useful at specifying end points, than the exact network in 
the middle. So ICANN is more the guardian of the infrastructure to 
determine specific end points, than worried about exactly how the 
packets flow across the oceans.

Maybe we also need an ICBPT ... for backbones, peering and transit.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul 10 13:47:54 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <835174.80537.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

That would include;
Me, Myself.& I. A couple of dogs, about 9* fish and my 7 children whether they like it or not.
And we still can't reach a consensus :-}
 
*pesky cranes and my 80lb wife like to catch and not release.

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: "'Eric Dierker'" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Sylvia Caras'" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "'Ginger Paque'" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 12:19 PM



Who is "we"...
 
M


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia Caras'; 'Ginger Paque'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start






Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our net.
 
Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power.

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "'Sylvia Caras'" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "'Ginger Paque'" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM



Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... 
 
Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case...
 
M


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM
To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start






Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.
 
In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics.

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments.

Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it.


And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/0840c091/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  Fri Jul 10 15:06:26 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:06:26 +0500
Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber
 laws
In-Reply-To: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70907101206g25b20978nf6b748b7be186bd0@mail.gmail.com>

Discussion:
This law has been under critic and a major crisis story in the region
since it originated in 2007. Yes, it depicted a new version of martial
law because it first came in the General President's regime back then.
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) - Under this law it
is a crime in Pakistan to take photographs of someone without their
consent, also sending messages (email, sms etc) that can be considered
lewd and uncivilized shall be considered a crime which is punishable
by law and the person found guilty of this act can be punished with
seven (7) years imprisonment or Rs. 300,000 penalty or both.

If you search Dispute over Electronic Crimes Ordinance in Pakistan in
Google, you will find a lot of videos, concerns etc.

Title: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No.
IX of 2008)
Country: Pakistan
Entry into force: 2008
Language: English
Description:     	
Pakistan\'s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance came into force
on the 29 Septempber 2008. It makes provision for prevention of the
electronic crimes and extends to the whole of Pakistan. The Ordinance
shall apply to every person who commits an electronic offence
irrespective of his nationality or citizenship whatsoever or in any
place outside or inside Pakistan, having detrimental effect on the
security of Pakistan or its nationals or national harmony or any
property or any electronic system or data located in Pakistan or any
electronic system or data capable of being connected, sent to, used by
or with any electronic system in Pakistan.
links:
http://www.na.gov.pk/ordinances/prevention_electronic_crimes280108.pdf
http://www.fia.gov.pk/electronic_prevention_orde.pdf

This is the 2007 version:
http://www.pakistanlaw.com/electronic_prevention_ord.pdf
http://www.naseerahmad.com/2008/01/24/prevention-of-electronic-crimes-ordinance-pakistan-2007.html

In November last year, under the new regime, it was promulgated as the
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No. IX of
2008):
http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/cyber-crimes-ordinance-2008/
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58277&Itemid=1
http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/cyber-crimes-ordinance-2008/

Here are some interesting faces of this law:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26762898 at N08/3358890495/


On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Eric
Dierker<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Please explain, perhaps why I am wrong.
>
> Enacted laws still have to operate within and under constitutional,
> procedural and court mandated protections of individual rights. I assume
> there is nothing in this law that says all of those safeguards are
> suspended. It sounds like you are saying there is a new martial law in place
> regarding computers. To my knowledge this is not the case.
>
> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws -
> Pakistan
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:43 AM
>
> http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06
>
> ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information
> Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency,
> stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in
> ‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’.
>
> The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat
> endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the
> ordinance.
>
> Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated
> the fundamental rights of the people.
>
> She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory
> powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that
> it could take years to prove the offence.
>
> She said under the current law search and seizure could take place
> anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems.
>
> The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the
> computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false
> evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged.
>
> Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO,
> she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for
> investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008.
>
> Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of
> additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double
> punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing
> damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under
> relevant sections and under the PECO.
>
> The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property
> rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such
> property loss were stated in the law.
>
> Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training
> programmes were required for investigation agencies.  “A law is only
> required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere
> e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added.
>
> --
>
> 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
>



-- 

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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 16:01:34 2009
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:01:34 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1161f110907101301ycc27b07x3430be0aef16c8ff@mail.gmail.com>

With considerable help from Ginger, I'd like to have added:


Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.


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

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


From karl at cavebear.com  Fri Jul 10 17:51:15 2009
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:51:15 -0700
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com>

On 07/10/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

>> If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator
>> of the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system
>> wants to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can
>> know about this,
>
> That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are
> they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here
> about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not
> the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to
> boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS?

Let's dig into that.

First of all, ICANN is not a consumer protection agency.  It was not 
created to do that at all.  And if it were not only does it not have the 
proper form, charter, and powers but also it would be very odd indeed 
when one notices that it would then be a consumer protection body that 
not only locks-out consumers from the decision making process but also 
encourages those who prey on consumers into the inner sanctums of that 
decision making process.

Secondly, as for the issue of whether people need to look to and chose 
DNS providers.

Some do, some don't.

With regard to the some do:  If person X (you for instance) are buying a 
domain name then why should we have a regulatory body that denies you 
the choice of buying a name from a highly robust TLD/registry (such as 
operated by Verisign) or from a wimpy TLD registry (such as a 
hypothetical .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow)?  As long as the information about 
the quality of the operation is available to you why should we impose a 
regulatory regime that denies you the choice?

One aspect of this that is not discussed much is that one thing that is 
missing from the world-according-to-ICANN is the ability for people to 
lock-in their contractual terms.  ICANN imposes an arbitrary (and very 
capricious) and also inadequate 10 year limit.

In other words, on the internet is ICANN to be our (or our brother's) 
keeper?

With regard to the some don't: If customers or clients can not reach a 
net service or website because the person behind that service/site has a 
name in a weak TLD then that person's suffers when the client takes 
his/her custom elsewhere.  Self interest will drive people who want to 
offer reliable net service/applications to the robust (but usually more 
expensive) TLDs.  But for someone who wants to save some money perhaps 
they are willing to take the risk that .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow will in 
fact crash on the next rising of the sun.

The logic that says that the user/client is harmed by shakey DNS and 
that therefore those providing net services must be forced to buy only 
from highly solid providers is a logic that would also require net 
services to be hosted only on the most rock solid of computers with the 
most rock solid of power systems and connected by links of unimpeachable 
quality.

Wanna make the net as expensive as the telcos of 1970? - that's the path 
to do it.

One of the reasons that VoIP seems so inexpensive compared to telco 
services is that the telcos are burdened with massive costs to keep 
things running with lifeline grade quality.  VoIP providers don't have 
to bear that.

The logic that says that all DNS providers must offer lifeline levels of 
availablity is a logic that would deny existence to VoIP unless that 
VoIP met telco lifeline grade availability.

Let's not go down that path and require that every part of all of the 
net be so hardened that it will almost never fail.  That would be the 
death of many home or office based net services and it would most 
certainly raise the cost of the net to prices that many, particularly in 
"southern" regions could not afford.


>> then that would be OK. But for root zone operator such ICANN which
>> promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be rather
>> higher.
>
> And you propose ICANN be stricter about redundancy of the DNS?

Yes, for those who sign contracts with ICANN.  But I also propose that 
other root zone operators ought to be able to come to exist outside of 
ICANN and those might impose using lesser or greater standards via their 
own contractual relationships.

  That may
> be necessary, I'm not sure. Of course, the biggest hurdle is the
> somewhat arms length relationship between ICANN and the cctlds - the
> ones which are in some cases probably most likely to be run on a
> shoestring.

Many ccTLDs are (or were) run by Randy Bush.

(When I was at ICANN we transferred control of one ccTLD on the basis of 
a blank sheet of paper signed with an unverified signature by an unknown 
person.)

In the scheme that I have proposed for new TLDs and "competing roots" 
ccTLDs would be like any other TLD: they would have to come to an 
agreement with the root zone operator for inclusion in that operator's 
offerings.  (But any root zone operator that didn't gather all the 
ccTLDs, indeed all of ICANN's TLDs, would be foolish and would find 
itself quickly out of business.)

> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between
> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant
> whose content I want to access.

Yes.  And also that registrant has the choice whether to apply 
electricity to the servers that produce the service you want.  The point 
I'm making is that it is the provider of a net service who has the 
choice whether to provide it or even to allow particular people to use 
it.  It is not a right that is vested in the client, the network user.

>>> If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad
>>> data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Perhaps. Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other
>> infrastructures. How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to
>> report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com? Or what if
>> the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com?
>
> You have to expect that a failure in .com will be noticed by people
> other than those VoIP customers.

It is quite within the realm of possibility that the failure of .com 
could lead to all kinds of dependent failures.  For example, I would not 
be surprised to see some areas lose electrical service as a result. 
Here in Santa Cruz we lost the net a few months ago when someone cut 
fiber optic lines.  All kinds of unexpected side effects happened - 
gasoline stations had to shut down, 911 service on some hardwire phones 
stopped working, etc.

  When it's fixed it will hopefully be
> fixed for all of them.

That seems not to be the case.  Once an infrastructure goes down the 
reviving seems to be a process of triage and piecemeal recovery.  I know 
about this because here in Santa Cruz we go through this cycle several 
times a year.


>> Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we
>> view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use. But for some
>> short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for. If one
>> only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then
>> there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid
>> building things like data escrow and backups.
>
> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was
> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".

Yes, let's allow internet users - who are frequently also providers of 
internet services - the ability to pick and chose the net facilities 
that best fit with their needs and finances.

Why should we have an ICANN that imposes the most expensive (and the 
most trademark protective) system onto everyone.  The ICANN world is a 
one-size-fits-all-as-long-as-it-is-from-Tiffany world.  That kind of 
mother-knows-best-for-you paternalism should not be a part of the 
internet of today.

Sure consumers need protection.  But that is usually done with 
publication of information coupled by standards to assure safety.


>> The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the
>> internet should be onto the DNS. It is a very unimaginative view and
>> ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas.
>>
>> Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet
>> would never have been born.
>
> I'm struggling with that, because the original framework of
> .com/.org/.gov etc, plus cctlds dates from way before ICANN.

That's not my point.  The point is that the "no innovation because it 
might confuse or surprise users" flag that ICANN waves is one that, had 
it been in place in the early 1970's would have said "that new fangled 
packet switching stuff confuses users of switched circuits, and besides, 
packet switching throws away packets upon congestion and thus it is bad 
and must be kept away from users."


> Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem
> to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds,

If I believed that I would also be the proud owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

ICANN has granted so few new TLDs that it has made a mockery of the 
process.  And ICANN's regulatory scheme makes those few largely clones 
of one another.

If ICANN really were promoting competition the first thing it would need 
to do would be to let new vendors into the marketplace.  ICANN has not 
done that.  Then ICANN would have to let those vendors innovate.  ICANN 
is very much against that.


  and let's not forget
> IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in
> introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public.

Sheesh.  When the button/touch tone phones were introduced the public 
was harmed - huge parts of the public with old rotary dial phones could 
not reach new services.

New things do hurt the installed base.

It is a price we pay.  In some rare instances we chose not to move 
forward and deny a new technology.  My country did that for the better 
part of a decade by denying promising stem cell research because to do 
that research offended certain religious communities.

The internet is still far too new to ossify by restricting innovation or 
larding it with huge taxes or private tax equivalents (ICANN's tax and 
fiat registry fee amounts to the better part of $1,000,000 (USD) a year).

> And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X
> popular websites" for your DNS DVD,

The world wide web is but one service on the internet.  An emergency 
boot-up-and-go DVD that encompassed only the web would be deficient.

During an emergency, voice, email, and text message loads tend to go 
way, way up.  Web stuff tends to diminish in relation.

(By-the-way, one of the best ways to help release web-dependencies 
during troubled times is to map the names www.google-analytics.com and 
ssl.google-analytics.com to IP address 127.0.0.1.  It is amazing how 
many web pages cause side queries to google's analysis gathering sites.)

		--karl--

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 18:15:23 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:45:23 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110907101301ycc27b07x3430be0aef16c8ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <b1161f110907101301ycc27b07x3430be0aef16c8ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A57BD7B.2000400@gmail.com>

Thanks, Silvia!

I have added Silvia's proposed text below. Please comment, add, 
suggest... opine, on this or any other question, as soon as possible.

Best, Ginger

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?"

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the 
past various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.

[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a 
Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, 
team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for 
distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess 
of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended 
hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel 
speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to 
be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - 
$700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded 
NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would 
enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from 
Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those 
participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have 
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.




Sylvia Caras wrote:
> With considerable help from Ginger, I'd like to have added:
>
>
> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
> competitive and convenient.
>
>
> Sylvia
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 01:37:23 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:07:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org>
	 <fecfce260907090012j1e0056c6jf6a404501e8e6910@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907102237l639a8ef2r347f66c4ea69a21@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All,

The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this
with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this
idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat.

Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for
participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct
outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $
700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a
while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time
spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in
preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email
communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent
traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the
1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and
attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X
1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour,
considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts
to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost
of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF
work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host
team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum.
Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF
Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email
messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing
IGF issues.

For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an event
such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if
we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he
would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year.

A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible
and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of
participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional)
fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more
liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that
would double or triple the quality of the IGF.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy



On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it
> important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent
> of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active
> participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.
>
> The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not
> responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we
> phrase such matters.
>
> jeanette
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello Coordinators,
>>
>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of
>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as
>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied
>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a
>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel
>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class
>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in
>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two
>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the
>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $
>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs
>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable
>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are
>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who
>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in
>> traveling to the IGF.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>
>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:
>> jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>    On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>        "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>        improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>>        functioning and processes?"
>>
>>        Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>        near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>>        the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>>        inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>>        needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
>>        search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
>>        and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>>        remote participation.
>>
>>        And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>        people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>>        who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
>>        those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
>>        governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
>>        looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>>        responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
>>        and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
>>        the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
>>        economic and social development.
>>
>>
>>
>>    This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>>    structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
>>    in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
>>    summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
>>    for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
>>    an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
>>    perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
>>    governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
>>    work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
>>    regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
>>    of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>
>>    Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>>    structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
>>    more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
>>     In the past various such innovations have been considered -
>>    including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
>>    discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
>>    with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
>>    representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
>>    is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>>    long term it it does not prove its value to the international
>>    community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
>>    statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>
>>    --    JEREMY MALCOLM
>>    Project Coordinator
>>    CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>>    for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>>    7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>>    TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>    Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>    Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>>    Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>>    www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>
>>    Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>>    campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
>>    in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
>>    movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
>>    information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
>>    <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>>
>>
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    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
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090711/9cd9a86f/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  Sat Jul 11 05:09:36 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:09:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <4A10V7yQbFWKFAke@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A57B7D3.7050704 at cavebear.com>, at 14:51:15 on Fri, 10 Jul 
2009, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> writes
>On 07/10/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator
>>> of the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system
>>> wants to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can
>>> know about this,
>>
>> That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are
>> they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here
>> about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not
>> the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to
>> boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS?
>
>Let's dig into that.
>
>First of all, ICANN is not a consumer protection agency.

It appears to discuss things like protecting the privacy of that small 
subset of consumers who are registrants, but also helps protect the 
"average user" by rules about the WHOIS so the bad guys have more 
trouble hiding.

>It was not created to do that at all.  And if it were not only does it 
>not have the proper form, charter, and powers but also it would be very 
>odd indeed when one notices that it would then be a consumer protection 
>body that not only locks-out consumers from the decision making process

A body can be considerate of consumer protection issues without that 
being its prime purpose. As for representation, isn't that where ALAC 
and NCUC come in?

>but also encourages those who prey on consumers into the inner sanctums 
>of that decision making process.

What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the 
ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking 
so I'm very interested in your answer.

>Secondly, as for the issue of whether people need to look to and chose 
>DNS providers.
>
>Some do, some don't.
>
>With regard to the some do:  If person X (you for instance) are buying 
>a domain name then why should we have a regulatory body that denies you 
>the choice of buying a name from a highly robust TLD/registry (such as 
>operated by Verisign) or from a wimpy TLD registry (such as a 
>hypothetical .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow)?  As long as the information 
>about the quality of the operation is available to you why should we 
>impose a regulatory regime that denies you the choice?

Registrants are not "average Internet users", the latter having no 
influence over where the registrants choose to buy their names.

> When it's fixed it will hopefully be
>> fixed for all of them.
>
>That seems not to be the case.  Once an infrastructure goes down the 
>reviving seems to be a process of triage and piecemeal recovery.  I 
>know about this because here in Santa Cruz we go through this cycle 
>several times a year.

Fixed for everyone, until the next outage, of course. Sometimes the next 
outage will be less likely as a result of the fix, sometimes not :(

>let's allow internet users - who are frequently also providers of 
>internet services - the ability to pick and chose the net facilities 
>that best fit with their needs and finances.

In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's 
platform to influence the tld that Google uses.

>Sure consumers need protection.  But that is usually done with 
>publication of information coupled by standards to assure safety.

Caveat Emptor (who also has a science degree to understand the 
information). Sorry, but I talk with real "average users" every day, and 
that just doesn't work.

>The point is that the "no innovation because it might confuse or 
>surprise users" flag that ICANN waves is one that, had it been in place 
>in the early 1970's would have said "that new fangled packet switching 
>stuff confuses users of switched circuits, and besides, packet 
>switching throws away packets upon congestion and thus it is bad and 
>must be kept away from users."

And yet ICANN has embraced ipv6. How did that happen?

>> Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem
>> to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds,
>
>If I believed that I would also be the proud owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

It seems extraordinary if the new gtld process is designed to reduce the 
number of gtlds - but I suppose it could if it results in a few of the 
sponsored ones being re-examined to see if they "have clothes", *and* no 
new ones every being assigned.

>ICANN has granted so few new TLDs that it has made a mockery of the 
>process.

Which is why there's the current new-gtld process to take a different 
approach to the problem.

> and let's not forget
>> IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in
>> introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public.
>
>Sheesh.  When the button/touch tone phones were introduced the public 
>was harmed - huge parts of the public with old rotary dial phones could 
>not reach new services.

I hadn't thought of it that way. So when a Japanese site is only 
available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a 
Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm 
somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they 
have to provide an English version too).

>The internet is still far too new to ossify by restricting innovation 
>or larding it with huge taxes or private tax equivalents (ICANN's tax 
>and fiat registry fee amounts to the better part of $1,000,000 (USD) a 
>year).

Where does that figure some from. Earlier, I worked out that their $60m 
budget was 3c per Internet users. Is 3c "huge"?

>> And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X
>> popular websites" for your DNS DVD,
>
>The world wide web is but one service on the internet.  An emergency 
>boot-up-and-go DVD that encompassed only the web would be deficient.
>
>During an emergency, voice, email, and text message loads tend to go 
>way, way up.  Web stuff tends to diminish in relation.

So you'd have to advertise the existence of the DVD and people with 
services they wanted to protect could have their DNS added in.

I'm still not sure, by the way, if your DVD is to have more than the 
zone files from all the tlds - do you want the DNS of every registered 
domain as well, or is it good enough to have a pointer to each domain's 
DNS.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Jul 11 05:20:41 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:20:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A57E366.2B1B8A60 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:57:10 on Fri, 10 Jul 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But
>> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF
>> issue though).
>
>  I disagree.  The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN,
>is directly related to these sorts of issues.

The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the 
Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their 
domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper.

>>Are you really wanting customers to  boycott suppliers who use 
>>websites hosted with "weaker" DNS?
>
>Yes, our members do exactly so.

Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of 
entities they are?

>> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between
>> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant
>> whose content I want to access.
>
>  DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter.

Physical configuration is the main issue here.

>> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was
>> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".
>
>Registrants are users too.

But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN 
affects the *others*, who are "average users".

>Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm.  Such harm
>impacts everyone.

I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the 
exams). Is that harming everyone?
-- 
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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 07:56:12 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:56:12 -0400
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907102237l639a8ef2r347f66c4ea69a21@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ABF4DCC7607B48FBBFD255FE676CA0AD@userPC>

I agree with this suggestion and this analysis.
 
MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:37 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start


Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All,

The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this
with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this
idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat.

Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for
participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct
outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $
700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a
while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time
spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in
preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email
communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent
traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the
1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and
attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X
1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour,
considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts
to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost
of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF
work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host
team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum.
Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF
Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email
messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing
IGF issues. 

For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an event
such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if
we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he
would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year. 

A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible
and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of
participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional)
fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more
liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that
would double or triple the quality of the IGF.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy




On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:


Hi,

the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it
important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent
of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active
participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.

The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not
responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we
phrase such matters.

jeanette

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:


Hello Coordinators,

As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting
the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to
travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at
least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team
organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for
distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4
hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels
with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers
invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well
treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as
unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and
International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the
IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not
the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have
a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling
to the IGF.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz





On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:

   On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

       "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
       improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
       functioning and processes?"

       Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
       near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
       the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
       inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
       needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
       search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
       and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
       remote participation.

       And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
       people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
       who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
       those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
       governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
       looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
       responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
       and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
       the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
       economic and social development.



   This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
   structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
   in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
   summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
   for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
   an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
   perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
   governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
   work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
   regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
   of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.

   Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
   structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
   more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
    In the past various such innovations have been considered -
   including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
   discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
   with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
   representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
   is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
   long term it it does not prove its value to the international
   community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
   statements on Internet public policy issues.

   --    JEREMY MALCOLM
   Project Coordinator
   CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
   for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    
   Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
   7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
   TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
   Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
   Mob: +60 12 282 5895
   Fax: +60 3 7726 8599

   www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org> 


   Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
   campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
   in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
   movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
   information, visit www.consumersinternational.org

   <http://www.consumersinternational.org>. 



   ____________________________________________________________
   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





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090711/c5b9c2a9/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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jul 11 09:24:28 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: p06200770c67928a31a6a@[10.0.1.3]
Message-ID: <sympa.1247318141.27826.779@lists.cpsr.org>

George,
Let’s categorize a few baseline definitions for “Average Internet User”
first, 
Then let’s define “Hurt” … the User, as Icann’s actions effect them
directly, and as those action affect the interactive-relationship between them,
and how the action affects the system holistically (systemics). 
Lets keep it simple (K.I.S.S.).

At the starting level there are those who simply access the internet in various
ways to; Surf, Shop, & Message (Via: Home computer, Work Computer, Internet
Café, Handi’s (Cell Device, etc…). In an asymmetric scenario they are at
the receiving end of the Push. These are the ‘Common Users’ of the Net
(i.e.: Net-Tourist).

The next level is the ‘Commercial Service Users’, these Folks use
commercial services like: eBay, Skype, Craigslist, Wordpress, Paypal (i.e.:
They are commerce account holders) etc.  They are the Street Pushers, in an
asymmetric scenario.

Next level is the ‘Hosting Service Users’, they typically subscribe to a
Hosting provider, but do not run their	own Web Server \ Name Server, they may
own a small number of Domains (1-20) and actually have hosted sites for  a few
of those, the rest are inventory (i.e.: SoHo’s). They are the SoHo Pushers,
in an asymmetric scenario (i.e.: Professional Services).

Up a level too ‘Self Hosted Users’ they run their own in-house Sever and
typically own (1-50) Domains for a variety of uses (email, content, voip. foip,
porting addresses, etc..)  They range from small to medium business companies,
and depend on Local and National commerce (sales) , not International business.

>From this we enter the realm of the ‘SoHo Domainers’, they hold a number of
Domains from One too One Hundred (50-100) . These Domains are: Parked,
Forwarded, & held as Speculative Inventory for a possible future Startup. SoHo
Domineers’ use commercial drop services of: SnapNames, Pool, NameJet, Go
Daddy, & Moniker  etc… to acquire domains and sell Domains. The SoHo
Domainers’ budget is pretty much regulated by the annual size of their
wallet, and typically won’t want to spend more than $100 for a Domain, but
may spend upward to $400. Depends upon what they are trying to accomplish, and
the personal funds available.

Next up, ‘Domain Traders’ these guys buy and sell domains for a living, the
Domain is a inventory asset, it is usually: Parked for Sale or Listed with the
Commercial Drop Services. Domain Traders’ speculate heavily on new TDLs for
the cash cow Domain Names (i.e.: sex(dot)anything). A Domain Traders’
portfolio is anywhere from 100 – 1000 Domains in investment inventory. They
are not Registers, and frequent Auctions to Buy, Sell and Trade. The upper end
may spend up to 10K depending on their margin, for a Domain.

The ‘Domain Brokers’  hits the upper limit of Domain inventory investment,
these portfolios are in excess of thousands (1000+), the Players are typically
ICANN sanctioned Domain Registers backed by Investment Capital funds. Moniker,
Go Daddy, Momentous, T.R.A.F.F.I.C., AfterMarket, Overseer etc…The Domain
Brokers host & fuel the Domain market with Live Auctions and Events, and keep
their ball rolling.

A last there are the Registrars and Registries, their mediacy of DNS Names
allows them access to nearly an infinite amount of Domain Names, of which the
inventory is related to the creativeness of the Original Registrant
(whatever(dot)anything).

So let’s recap the User Groups:
Common Users (Net-Tourist), Commercial Service Users (non-hosting), Hosting
Service Users (1-20 Domains), Self Hosted Users (1-50 Domains),  SoHo Domainers
(50-100 Domains), Domain Traders (100-1000 Domains), Domain Brokers (1000+
Domains), & Registrars and Registries (infinite). ... 
--

Now let’s define ‘Hurt’ … the Internet User, in terms of: Social,
Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects.

Socially, how does it affect the Groups.
Economically, how does it affect the Groups.
Developmentally, how does it affect the Groups.
Geo Politically, how does it affect the Groups.
-----

I’ll break these up into individual posts [Social, Economic, Developmental, &
Geo Political effects], too lessen the length of this post:

How do ICANN's actions hurt Socially,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Economically,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Developmentally,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Geo Politically.

--
Sorry, I did not intent to make your question into a Thesis. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 11 16:20:42 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:20:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
 <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk> <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <dkn98DIaQPWKFAif@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6 at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:15:55 on Sat, 11 Jul 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>> >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But
>> >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF
>> >> issue though).
>> >
>> >  I disagree.  The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN,
>> >is directly related to these sorts of issues.
>>
>> The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the
>> Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their
>> domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper.
>
>I agree that the thickness or the copper for makers of undersea cable
>has no berring on ICANN.  I seriously doubt and know of a few
>cases or incidents where such makers of undersea cable have much
>more to discuss behind the scenes with ICANN than just their domain
>name registration.

So you agree that many people don't go to ICANN to be told how to run 
their day jobs. Including ISP connectivity and the assignment of IP 
addresses.

>> Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of
>> entities they are?
>
>  No I certainly cannot publically without their express written permission.

Could you ask them?

>> >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between
>> >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant
>> >> whose content I want to access.
>> >
>> >  DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter.
>>
>> Physical configuration is the main issue here.
>
>No.  Physical configuration is only one PART and not the MAIN part
>as hardware has not near as much to do with DNS as software does.

But as an end user, I have little practical choice in the matter. I have 
to use the DNS that the information provider I'm contacting has chosen.

And as we've been talking about complete outages, I really do think 
those are more often caused by failure of the physical configuration, 
rather than the software.

>> >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was
>> >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".
>> >
>> >Registrants are users too.
>>
>> But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN
>> affects the *others*, who are "average users".
>
>Registrants are average users as well as being registrants.

Not to the extent that we have to treat them differently in a discussion 
of ICANN's effect upon "average" users. In fact I' not even sure I agree 
they are "average", but it doesn't matter anyway.

>> >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm.  Such harm
>> >impacts everyone.
>>
>> I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the
>> exams). Is that harming everyone?
>
>Apples and potatos here.  A straw man argument does nothing
>to promote or justify a false premise and therefore is an illogical
>argument.  The fact that contrived and perhaps illegally contrived
>restraint of trade due to poor or bad policy and the implimentation
>of same IS a harm and may be an illegal harm at that.   Nice try
>here Roeland, but no cigar.

You could at least try to spell my name right.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Jul 11 16:34:09 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:34:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com>
 <4A10V7yQbFWKFAke@perry.co.uk> <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <CUR6QKJBdPWKFAD0@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:33:21 on Sat, 11 Jul 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>Privacy protection is not about hiding, it is about protecting from
>abuse.

I don't call legitimate reasons to want to identify who I'm doing 
business with an "abuse".

>The ALAC is not about openess and transparency.  As such it in it's
>current form cannot reasonably represent users.

So you think the ALAC's actions are adversely affecting average users? 
Can you give some examples.

>> What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the
>> ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking
>> so I'm very interested in your answer.
>
>There are not ordinary users per se.

Who are "they"?

>Again there are no "Average Internet users".

Of course there are. All those people sat at home on the end of cable 
modems, DSL and even dial-up.

> All users, registrants or non-registrants have a reasonable 
>expectation that wherever some potential registrant buys their Domain 
>Name, that that Registrar is operating in an honest and above board 
>manner.  Such has proven too many times to not be the case.  Ergo, ALL 
>users are damaged accordingly.

How does it damage the average user, if a registrant suffers a problem 
with their registry? (Apart from those time the registry accepts 
incorrect WHOIS information).

>> In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's
>> platform to influence the tld that Google uses.
>
>WEB2.0 is DOA at present, and unlikely to be revived despite the
>rhetoric to the contrary.

Forget the web2.0 aspects then, what about people using the web1.0 bits 
of Google?

>Why should there be a restriction of new TLD's?

But you seem to want better assurance that "Registrars [are] operating 
in an honest and above board manner.  Such has proven too many times to 
not be the case." Would that mysteriously fix itself if anyone could run 
a tld registry?

>>So when a Japanese site is only
>> available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a
>> Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm
>> somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they
>> have to provide an English version too).
>
>They?  Who is they exactly?  Perhaps you mean the Japanese IDN
>domain holder?

Yes, that's "them".

> If so, why should they be required to provide a english version.

I didn't say they should. But if they want to appeal to an audience of 
non-Japanese speakers such as myself, it is necessary. Or they can 
ignore me. I don't care.

>No 3 cents is not huge.  $60m is.

Pretty small, really, for such a global enterprise.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 00:00:45 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <688449.13240.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Hmm,
 
My issue is with expanding the scope to "doing good works" as opposed to creating an open forum for sound expressions of ideas for the governance of the Internet.

--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: "'Eric Dierker'" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "'Sylvia Caras'" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "'Ginger Paque'" <gpaque at gmail.com>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:27 AM


Michael and all,

  Aptly and rightly ask?  Perhaps there will be an answer from
our fellow user and "Dotcommoner", Eric. ??  My guess is however,
that the "We" is ALL users and future users.  I hope that my guess
was what Eric meant by "We".

  This said and ask, let me further digress on Eric's other utterances.
I and all of our members amongst many others, perhaps a majority
believe that international "do gooders" are not only welcome, but
very beneficial as they, myself included, seek to do good works for
all and by all.  To seek otherwise is of course inherently wrong
headed and fundamentally harmful as well as far less then useful
or helpful.  The key is what is or defines "Good works" and what
only benifits a few.

Michael Gurstein wrote:

>  Who is "we"...M
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]
>      Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM
>      To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia
>      Caras'; 'Ginger Paque'
>      Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
>
       Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is
       only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this
       freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles
       or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our
       net. Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into
       what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and
       co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner
       publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be
       restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor
       people. We need to govern activity of those in power.

       --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


            From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
            Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
            To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'"
            <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "'Sylvia Caras'"
            <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "'Ginger Paque'"
            <gpaque at gmail.com>
            Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM

            Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors...
            Interesting concept... Not sure what you do with the
            notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the
            last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the
            Internet is a special case...M

                 -----Original Message-----
                 From: Eric Dierker
                 [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]
                 Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM
                 To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
                 Ginger Paque
                 Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
                 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question
                 6 start


                 Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any
                 suggestions.  Great for goals and
                 cheerleading but very destructive to building
                 foundations.  People must get the fact that
                 caring for the needy via the internet is not
                 grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting
                 accomodation. At best teh below approach will
                 lead us to form general policy based on
                 isolated non-representative experience and at
                 norm lead us moribound into more worry about
                 an individual or inclusiveness than results.
                 "Governance" is not the idea of developing,
                 it is the idea of working with what we have,
                 or what comes into it, not what will make us
                 feel good. In short - you do not form a
                 governance model and then say "Now let us go
                 out and find folks to govern".  Townhall
                 meeting concepts are for pr and politics.

                 --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque
                 <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

                      Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your
                      comments.

                      Erik, did you have any specific
                      requests, or just positive feedback
                      for Jeremy's addition? If there was
                      a change implied, I did not get it.



                      And here we include for example,
                      Indigenous peoples worldwide,
                      people with disabilities, rural
                      people and particularly those who
                      are the poorest of the poor and
                      often landless or migrants, those
                      concerned with promoting peer to
                      peer and open access governance
                      structures built on an electronic
                      platform, those looking to
                      alternative modes of Internet
                      governance as ways of responding to
                      specific localized opportunities
                      and limitations, and those working
                      as practitioners and activists in
                      implementing the Internet as a
                      primary resource in support of
                      broad based economic and social
                      development.

            -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

            ____________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090711/038d42aa/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 00:02:09 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Message-ID: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

The funding model is sound. The methods for determining participants and panelists is suspect.

--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
To: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:37 AM


Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All,

The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat.

Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $ 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour, considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts to $ 12.5
 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing IGF issues. 

For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year. 

A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional) fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that would double or triple the quality of the IGF.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy




On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

Hi,

the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.

The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters.

jeanette

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:


Hello Coordinators,

As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to
 bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz







On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:

   On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

       "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
       improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
       functioning and processes?"

       Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
       near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
       the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
       inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
       needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
       search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
       and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
       remote participation.

       And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
       people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
       who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
       those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
       governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
       looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
       responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
       and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
       the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
       economic and social development.



   This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
   structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
   in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
   summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
   for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
   an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
   perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
   governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
   work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
   regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
   of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.

   Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
   structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
   more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
    In the past various such innovations have been considered -
   including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
   discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
   with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
   representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
   is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
   long term it it does not prove its value to the international
   community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
   statements on Internet public policy issues.

   --    JEREMY MALCOLM
   Project Coordinator
   CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
   for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    
   Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
   7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
   TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
   Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
   Mob: +60 12 282 5895
   Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
   www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>


   Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
   campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
   in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
   movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
   information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
   <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.



   ____________________________________________________________
   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





-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090711/e7ddc4e7/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 01:16:33 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
Message-ID: <875618.43845.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Roland,
 
Seems that your original premise makes good general sense.  But trying to make the case that the names and numbers and addresses people use for the purpose of accessing information is irrelevant is over the top.
But thanks for making a strong point.

--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:


From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 8:34 PM


In message <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:33:21 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

> Privacy protection is not about hiding, it is about protecting from
> abuse.

I don't call legitimate reasons to want to identify who I'm doing business with an "abuse".

> The ALAC is not about openess and transparency.  As such it in it's
> current form cannot reasonably represent users.

So you think the ALAC's actions are adversely affecting average users? Can you give some examples.

>> What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the
>> ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking
>> so I'm very interested in your answer.
> 
> There are not ordinary users per se.

Who are "they"?

> Again there are no "Average Internet users".

Of course there are. All those people sat at home on the end of cable modems, DSL and even dial-up.

> All users, registrants or non-registrants have a reasonable expectation that wherever some potential registrant buys their Domain Name, that that Registrar is operating in an honest and above board manner.  Such has proven too many times to not be the case.  Ergo, ALL users are damaged accordingly.

How does it damage the average user, if a registrant suffers a problem with their registry? (Apart from those time the registry accepts incorrect WHOIS information).

>> In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's
>> platform to influence the tld that Google uses.
> 
> WEB2.0 is DOA at present, and unlikely to be revived despite the
> rhetoric to the contrary.

Forget the web2.0 aspects then, what about people using the web1.0 bits of Google?

> Why should there be a restriction of new TLD's?

But you seem to want better assurance that "Registrars [are] operating in an honest and above board manner.  Such has proven too many times to not be the case." Would that mysteriously fix itself if anyone could run a tld registry?

>> So when a Japanese site is only
>> available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a
>> Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm
>> somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they
>> have to provide an English version too).
> 
> They?  Who is they exactly?  Perhaps you mean the Japanese IDN
> domain holder?

Yes, that's "them".

> If so, why should they be required to provide a english version.

I didn't say they should. But if they want to appeal to an audience of non-Japanese speakers such as myself, it is necessary. Or they can ignore me. I don't care.

> No 3 cents is not huge.  $60m is.

Pretty small, really, for such a global enterprise.
-- Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090711/d3e5940a/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 01:32:51 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
Message-ID: <883801.78402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

If I am reading this right, or right side up, your model suggests that producers dictate the market.  I think you may have a case with TV and Internet marketing.  But the fact those industries are so huge makes clear that the Consumer dotcommoner is what drives the net. The geniuses at the engineering and technical industries supply a need. The consumers do not fill a need created in some lab. Your model that an entire industry is driven by the "top" end suppliers as opposed to "bottom" end users is pure communism which is a theory and not a reality.

--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:


From: Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 PM


George,
Let’s categorize a few baseline definitions for “Average Internet User”
first, 
Then let’s define “Hurt” … the User, as Icann’s actions effect them
directly, and as those action affect the interactive-relationship between them,
and how the action affects the system holistically (systemics). 
Lets keep it simple (K.I.S.S.).

At the starting level there are those who simply access the internet in various
ways to; Surf, Shop, & Message (Via: Home computer, Work Computer, Internet
Café, Handi’s (Cell Device, etc…). In an asymmetric scenario they are at
the receiving end of the Push. These are the ‘Common Users’ of the Net
(i.e.: Net-Tourist).

The next level is the ‘Commercial Service Users’, these Folks use
commercial services like: eBay, Skype, Craigslist, Wordpress, Paypal (i.e.:
They are commerce account holders) etc.  They are the Street Pushers, in an
asymmetric scenario.

Next level is the ‘Hosting Service Users’, they typically subscribe to a
Hosting provider, but do not run their    own Web Server \ Name Server, they may
own a small number of Domains (1-20) and actually have hosted sites for  a few
of those, the rest are inventory (i.e.: SoHo’s). They are the SoHo Pushers,
in an asymmetric scenario (i.e.: Professional Services).

Up a level too ‘Self Hosted Users’ they run their own in-house Sever and
typically own (1-50) Domains for a variety of uses (email, content, voip. foip,
porting addresses, etc..)  They range from small to medium business companies,
and depend on Local and National commerce (sales) , not International business.

>From this we enter the realm of the ‘SoHo Domainers’, they hold a number of
Domains from One too One Hundred (50-100) . These Domains are: Parked,
Forwarded, & held as Speculative Inventory for a possible future Startup. SoHo
Domineers’ use commercial drop services of: SnapNames, Pool, NameJet, Go
Daddy, & Moniker  etc… to acquire domains and sell Domains. The SoHo
Domainers’ budget is pretty much regulated by the annual size of their
wallet, and typically won’t want to spend more than $100 for a Domain, but
may spend upward to $400. Depends upon what they are trying to accomplish, and
the personal funds available.

Next up, ‘Domain Traders’ these guys buy and sell domains for a living, the
Domain is a inventory asset, it is usually: Parked for Sale or Listed with the
Commercial Drop Services. Domain Traders’ speculate heavily on new TDLs for
the cash cow Domain Names (i.e.: sex(dot)anything). A Domain Traders’
portfolio is anywhere from 100 – 1000 Domains in investment inventory. They
are not Registers, and frequent Auctions to Buy, Sell and Trade. The upper end
may spend up to 10K depending on their margin, for a Domain.

The ‘Domain Brokers’  hits the upper limit of Domain inventory investment,
these portfolios are in excess of thousands (1000+), the Players are typically
ICANN sanctioned Domain Registers backed by Investment Capital funds. Moniker,
Go Daddy, Momentous, T.R.A.F.F.I.C., AfterMarket, Overseer etc…The Domain
Brokers host & fuel the Domain market with Live Auctions and Events, and keep
their ball rolling.

A last there are the Registrars and Registries, their mediacy of DNS Names
allows them access to nearly an infinite amount of Domain Names, of which the
inventory is related to the creativeness of the Original Registrant
(whatever(dot)anything).

So let’s recap the User Groups:
Common Users (Net-Tourist), Commercial Service Users (non-hosting), Hosting
Service Users (1-20 Domains), Self Hosted Users (1-50 Domains),  SoHo Domainers
(50-100 Domains), Domain Traders (100-1000 Domains), Domain Brokers (1000+
Domains), & Registrars and Registries (infinite). ... 
--

Now let’s define ‘Hurt’ … the Internet User, in terms of: Social,
Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects.

Socially, how does it affect the Groups.
Economically, how does it affect the Groups.
Developmentally, how does it affect the Groups.
Geo Politically, how does it affect the Groups.
-----

I’ll break these up into individual posts [Social, Economic, Developmental, &
Geo Political effects], too lessen the length of this post:

How do ICANN's actions hurt Socially,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Economically,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Developmentally,
How do ICANN's actions hurt Geo Politically.

--
Sorry, I did not intent to make your question into a Thesis. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090711/ff1ab8b6/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  Sun Jul 12 02:06:37 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:36:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907112306x7b36dfd3odc7ed78d236ae344@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger,

Q6 is assigned to me and Vanda. I am beginning to work on a statement, and
to make sure that all comments are reviewed word by word, I have copied the
thread in editable form on a Social Text Wiki page ( I am not a wiki expert,
just trying )

It is not for me to suggest what collaborative platforms IGC may use, but
for this little task, to ensure that a fair summary arises, and to make it
easy for the participants to see all comments in one single page without the
need for opening and reading email messages one by one, I have started on
this page.

Will copy and bring the text in progress to this thread for further
comments. For now, I am inviting Vanda and Ginger Paque to the workshop
which is accessible for all participants.

http://www1.socialtext.net/in-com/index.cgi?igc_statement_on_igf_review_q6

Shiva.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Eric Dierker
<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> The funding model is sound. The methods for determining participants and
> panelists is suspect.
>
> --- On *Sat, 7/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
> To: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:37 AM
>
> Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All,
>
> The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing
> this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when
> this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF
> Secretariat.
>
> Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for
> participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct
> outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $
> 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a
> while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time
> spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in
> preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email
> communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent
> traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the
> 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and
> attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X
> 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour,
> considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts
> to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost
> of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF
> work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host
> team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum.
> Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF
> Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email
> messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing
> IGF issues.
>
> For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an
> event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is
> that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF
> meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million
> every year.
>
> A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible
> and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of
> participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional)
> fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more
> liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that
> would double or triple the quality of the IGF.
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it
>> important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent
>> of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active
>> participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.
>>
>> The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not
>> responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we
>> phrase such matters.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Coordinators,
>>>
>>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of
>>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as
>>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied
>>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a
>>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel
>>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class
>>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in
>>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two
>>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the
>>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
>>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $
>>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs
>>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable
>>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are
>>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who
>>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in
>>> traveling to the IGF.
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeremy at ciroap.org><mailto:
>>> jeremy at ciroap.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeremy at ciroap.org>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>        "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>>        improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>>>        functioning and processes?"
>>>
>>>        Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>>        near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>>>        the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more
>>>        inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not
>>>        needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the
>>>        search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard
>>>        and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>>>        remote participation.
>>>
>>>        And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>>        people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those
>>>        who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,
>>>        those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access
>>>        governance structures built on an electronic platform, those
>>>        looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
>>>        responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,
>>>        and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing
>>>        the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
>>>        economic and social development.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>>>    structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable
>>>    in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental
>>>    summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate
>>>    for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as
>>>    an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,
>>>    perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet
>>>    governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most
>>>    work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
>>>    regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more
>>>    of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>>
>>>    Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>>>    structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
>>>    more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
>>>     In the past various such innovations have been considered -
>>>    including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable
>>>    discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through
>>>    with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
>>>    representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never
>>>    is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>>>    long term it it does not prove its value to the international
>>>    community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding
>>>    statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>>
>>>    --    JEREMY MALCOLM
>>>    Project Coordinator
>>>    CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
>>>    for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>>    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
>>>    7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
>>>    TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>    Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>    Mob: +60 12 282 5895
>>>    Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
>>>    www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>    Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
>>>    campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
>>>    in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
>>>    movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
>>>    information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
>>>    <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>>
>>>
>>>    To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>    <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    For all list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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/20090712/e6b2b382/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  Sun Jul 12 06:27:27 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:27:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <4A59152B.A3DD0B84@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
 <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk> <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com>
 <dkn98DIaQPWKFAif@perry.co.uk> <4A59152B.A3DD0B84@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <mkSzsGYPqbWKFAkm@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A59152B.A3DD0B84 at ix.netcom.com>, at 15:41:48 on Sat, 11 Jul 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>Let me "Try" to parse this so that even a litarary midget can understand.

Is that an insult to anyone in particular?
-- 
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 vanda at uol.com.br  Sun Jul 12 08:06:16 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:06:16 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>

 Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.

 Best,

 

Vanda Scartezini

POLO Consultores Associados

&  IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.

Fone + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob + 5511 8181.1464

 

From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] 
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
To: 'Ginger Paque'
Cc: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Importance: High

 

Hi Ginger

 Here my feedback

 

"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would
you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?"

 

 

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and
the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, IGF
shall support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand
to strength movements already existents in some regions and to help others
to start.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the
support of IGF - shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a
regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.

 

 

Best to all

 

 

Vanda Scartezini

POLO Consultores Associados

&  IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.

Fone + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob + 5511 8181.1464

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
To: Vanda Scartezini
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

 

Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to 

Question 6, stating your point?

 

Vanda Scartezini wrote:

> Dear all 

> As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to
define

> (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America)

> regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get

> specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,

> have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/

> communities.

>  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the

> importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the

> implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since

> implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage
IGF

> regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF

> Best to all, 

> Vanda Scartezini

> POLO Consultores Associados

> &  IT Trend

> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.

> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253

> Mob + 5511 8181.1464

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 

> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM

> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger

> Paque'

> Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

> 

> Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can 

> submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of 

> them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start 

> discussion on that question.

> 

> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 

> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 

> processes?"

> 

> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 

> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 

> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 

> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 

> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 

> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 

> but not limited to, remote participation.

> 

> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 

> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 

> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 

> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 

> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 

> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 

> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 

> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 

> based economic and social development.

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, 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/20090712/144ca64b/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 08:41:33 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:11:33 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
Message-ID: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>

Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it 
today, adding missing parts and working on text.

I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. 
Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so 
please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get 
consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / 
objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks.


1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

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


2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness 
and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the 
importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of 
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the 
responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It 
allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the 
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.

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.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 
acted as a catalyst for change?

Text from Shiva:

IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of 
Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity 
involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase 
as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to 
experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are 
becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' 
equality is largely an IGF achievement.

As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process 
has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A 
point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be 
relevant:

(from the meeting transcript)
IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
idea
of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
this or
in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
comfort
them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are 
taken by government, by businesses in
complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
reflect
the mood of the IGF.
So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
report on
the mood of IGF. Thank you.


4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the 
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like 
to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term 
"multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official 
purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of 
the IGF.

MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to 
making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the 
new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are 
of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the 
other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally 
discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand 
that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. 
All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries 
of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should 
be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics 
are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such 
topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as 
appropriate.

*Membership of the MAG*

• The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required 
balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so 
large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present 
circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One 
third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
• In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities 
of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the 
Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is 
associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly 
established, and made open along with due justifications.
• Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 
advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among 
all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary 
to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
• We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet 
administration and the development of Internet-related technical 
standards should
continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation 
should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
• Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate 
processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that 
it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given 
set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular 
stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially 
in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope 
for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, 
however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations 
from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept 
to the minimum.
• When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure 
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special 
interest groups.

*Role and Structure of the MAG*

With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time 
to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will 
be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.
• One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the 
annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out 
this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the 
effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its 
decision making processes to make them more effective. These are 
especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what 
it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate.
• It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups 
(WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of 
workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for 
managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
• We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has 
any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. 
For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 
'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' 
etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the 
IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN 
Secretary General.
• MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 
mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 
parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline 
plans for the year ahead. We
suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would 
also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and 
prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum 
beyond 2010.
• IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which 
should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out 
for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is 
also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a 
UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express 
our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. 
While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of 
the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources 
needed to perform its role effectively.
In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation 
of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF 
annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.

*Special Advisors and Chair*

The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for 
their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as 
mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for 
the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should 
be kept within a reasonable limit.
We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature 
of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN 
Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy 
chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues 
for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the 
division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the 
present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested 
new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the 
Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative 
has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now 
about the post-Hyderabad phase.
And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present 
Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend 
the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through 
difficult formative times


5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
mandate, and why/why not?

The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should 
continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.

There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - 
first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for 
multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity 
building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.

Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be 
promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF 
is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other 
principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its 
effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.

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

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

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last 
few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be 
assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its 
functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To 
this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets 
involved in the IGF's management.


6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with 
promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.


Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.

[Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using 
its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some 
regions and to help others to start.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in 
a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.

[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a 
Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, 
team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for 
distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess 
of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended 
hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel 
speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to 
be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - 
$700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded 
NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would 
enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from 
Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those 
participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have 
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past 
various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 08:54:46 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:24:46 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Vanda's section edited
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <4A59DD16.5060405@gmail.com>

[Text proposed by Vanda, edited]

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using 
its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some 
regions and to help others to start.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 
in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these 
years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of 
multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This 
should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the 
annual IGF meeting.

Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
> Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.
>
> Best,
>
> */Vanda Scartezini/*
>
> */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>
> */& IT Trend/*
>
> */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>
> */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>
> */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>
> */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>
> *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
> *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
> *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
> *Importance:* High
>
> Hi Ginger
>
> Here my feedback
>
> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
> processes?"
>
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
> policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world, using 
> its mission and brand to strength movements already existents in some 
> regions and to help others to start.
>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the 
> support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, 
> in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these 
> years.
>
> Best to all
>
> */Vanda Scartezini/*
>
> */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>
> */& IT Trend/*
>
> */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>
> */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>
> */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>
> */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: Vanda Scartezini
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
>
> Question 6, stating your point?
>
> Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
> > Dear all
>
> > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is 
> to define
>
> > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin 
> America)
>
> > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
>
> > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
>
> > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
>
> > communities.
>
> > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
>
> > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the
>
> > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and 
> since
>
> > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to 
> encourage IGF
>
> > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>
> > Best to all,
>
> > Vanda Scartezini
>
> > POLO Consultores Associados
>
> > & IT Trend
>
> > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>
> > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>
> > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>
> > Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>
> > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 
> 'Ginger
>
> > Paque'
>
> > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
> >
>
> > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can
>
> > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of
>
> > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start
>
> > discussion on that question.
>
> >
>
> > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>
> > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>
> > processes?"
>
> >
>
> > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>
> > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
>
> > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>
> > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
>
> > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster 
> more
>
> > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through,
>
> > but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> >
>
> > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
>
> > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
>
> > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with
>
> > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built 
> on an
>
> > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
>
> > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities 
> and
>
> > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
>
> > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
>
> > based economic and social development.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > For all list information and functions, see:
>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 09:06:21 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:36:21 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

 

Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
development of the Internet.

 

There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much so 
that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it was 
designed to be. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality 
of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this 
discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is 
indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to 
continue.

 

The Tunis agenda also 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 again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 09:15:30 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:45:30 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives of 
the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 
for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* 
declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, 
inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone 
can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, 
enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full 
potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their 
quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter 
of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights.

A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human Rights. 
Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 
significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 
voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of 
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the 
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 09:29:33 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:59:33 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q6 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com>


6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation.

And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:

 

 “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular 
attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of 
society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, 
unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* 
*We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons 
with disabilities.”

 

we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with 
disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of 
the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting 
peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.


Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.

 

[Vanda, edited]

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using 
its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some 
regions and to help others to start.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 
in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these 
years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of 
multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This 
should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the 
annual IGF meeting.


[Shiva, edited]
The IGC suggests that the multistakeholder community and the IGF 
establish a program to offer improved funding to extend travel support 
for panelists. Such funds would enable IGF main sessions and workshops 
to bring in more diverse opinions to the IGF including experts who have 
particular expertise, but are not the usual IGF participants. It would 
also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to 
panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the 
past various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 09:34:37 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:04:37 -0430
Subject: [governance] Apology: Trying for discussion and consensus, not Spam
In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A59E66D.8010104@gmail.com>

I sincerely apologize for the excess of email on the IGC questionnaire 
response. I am trying to write a consensus statement, and this is my way 
of trying to involve the whole list in the process while accelerating 
the pace due to time constraints, rather than just presenting a final 
statement for approval. I beg your patience, and ask that when you read 
emails, just review the latest version of each question. I hope you will 
opine. Best, Ginger
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Jul 12 09:53:50 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:53:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org>

On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it  
> in the Tunis Agenda?
>
> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss  
> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance  
> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,  
> stability and development of the Internet.
>
> There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much  
> so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it  
> was designed to be.

I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in  
it.  I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not  
so.  Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in  
particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our  
"all talk" IGF?

> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops,  
> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is  
> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that  
> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue.

We should add something like "There is more work to be done on  
addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that  
call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in  
effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance  
institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with  
the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating  
recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))."

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 10:30:20 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:00:20 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com>

Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

 Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
development of the Internet. 

There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 
So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely 
what it was designed to be. The participation, the increasing quantity 
and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof 
that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in 
workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing 
and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the 
debate and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, 
inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed.

However, there is more work to be done on addressing certain of the 
other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond 
discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with 
other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and 
(c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 
72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases 
(para 72(g)).

The Tunis agenda also 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 again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.



Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>
>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss 
>> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance 
>> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, 
>> stability and development of the Internet.
>>
>> There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much 
>> so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it 
>> was designed to be.
>
> I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in 
> it.  I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not 
> so.  Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in 
> particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our 
> "all talk" IGF?
>
>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, 
>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is 
>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that 
>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue.
>
> We should add something like "There is more work to be done on 
> addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that 
> call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in 
> effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance 
> institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with 
> the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating 
> recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))."
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Jul 12 10:36:05 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:36:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org>

On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?

What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be",  
because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than  
"all talk".  So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 10:54:13 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:24:13 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4A59F915.3040207@gmail.com>

Jeremy: So, lose those seven words...


Done. Here is the current Q1:


1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
development of the Internet.

There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 
So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The 
participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even 
the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking 
place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this 
process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that 
discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, 
particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not 
been adequately addressed.

However, there is more work to be done on addressing certain of the 
other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond 
discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with 
other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and 
(c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 
72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases 
(para 72(g)).

The Tunis agenda also 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 again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?
>
> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", 
> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than 
> "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 11:21:33 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:51:33 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC statement/questionnaire Q3
Message-ID: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>

Shiva is actively working on Q3.

I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of 
discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I 
think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, 
and far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in 
particular, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge 
proposals, there are panels that include business, government, academia 
and civil society working together.

We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as well:

*3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 
acted as a catalyst for change?*
You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a 
lot of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered 
by the way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or 
have learnt, eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But 
to get meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few 
questions along the lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your 
knowledge of internet governance? “ “has your involvement led to 
meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted your work” , “has 
multistakeholder involvement changed or affected your perspective on any 
particular governance issues” etc. These sort of questions would assist 
in getting a fuller understanding of what the impact might have been.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 12:38:27 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
Message-ID: <646416.75493.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

That is a very keen observation.
 
What a funny expression "all talk".  Do we likewise have "all reading" or "all exchanging ideas".  I suppose it has something to do with computer engineering trying to prove themselves as scientific and distancing themselves from the "art" of communication.

--- On Sun, 7/12/09, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 1:53 PM


On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
> 
> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.
> 
> There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it was designed to be.

I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in it.  I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not so.  Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our "all talk" IGF?

> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue.

We should add something like "There is more work to be done on addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))."

--JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

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

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090712/10f10470/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 12:50:14 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
Message-ID: <912885.1307.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>




Wow. Degrees, credentials, Koran, Bible, Buddha and the Art of War and Jabborwocky. I am full of it. But I ain't never read a sentence quite this unique;
 
"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 again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard."
 
Very well done if that is what you are after.  I ponder though if the disadvantaged or ESL amoung us are being included with such language. Seems almost like we are saying we do want them involved but acting very differently.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090712/5ed2549c/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  Sun Jul 12 12:52:17 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:22:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net>

Ginger,

I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors that 
have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore.

Let me first speak  about  parts that are not acceptable to me at all. 
And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree that 
for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in the 
present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this level  of  
participation  it may even get difficult to send out a statement in IGCs 
name. So I request some solid last minute activity on the list.

 >1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

 >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

When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of  it 
basically means  para  72 of TA.  The above response does not  at all 
deal with  the mandate laid out in para  72. National and regional 
processes are spoken of  only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not 
specifically in relation to the IGF.

I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too 
much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically 
brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues 
in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are 
global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost 
sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to 
this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which lays 
out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do 
clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and 
national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key 
imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much talk 
of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues.

If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1.

Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and 
structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can 
look up past statements.

parminder



Ginger Paque wrote:
> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it 
> today, adding missing parts and working on text.
>
> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little 
> time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later 
> today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest 
> we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post 
> agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. 
> Thanks.
>
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
> the Tunis Agenda?
>
> 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
>
>
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>
> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness 
> and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the 
> importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to 
> access the content and applications of their choice. This is in 
> keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and 
> relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
>
> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the 
> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
> It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern 
> the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>
> 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.
>
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>
> Text from Shiva:
>
> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of 
> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity 
> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory 
> pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an 
> opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process 
> of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of 
> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>
> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making 
> process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at 
> the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting 
> may be relevant:
>
> (from the meeting transcript)
> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
> idea
> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
> this or
> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
> comfort
> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions 
> are taken by government, by businesses in
> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
> reflect
> the mood of the IGF.
> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
> report on
> the mood of IGF. Thank you.
>
>
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>
> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the 
> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will 
> like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full 
> term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official 
> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of 
> the IGF.
>
> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to 
> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the 
> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We 
> are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open 
> and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, 
> normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do 
> understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed 
> discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be 
> listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same 
> rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of 
> the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a 
> closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary 
> of discussions provided, as appropriate.
>
> *Membership of the MAG*
>
> • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the 
> required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, 
> but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the 
> present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG 
> members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
> • In the interest of transparency and understanding the 
> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG 
> we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group 
> that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG 
> should be clearly established, and made open along with due 
> justifications.
> • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 
> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members 
> among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is 
> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global 
> governance.
> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet 
> administration and the development of Internet-related technical 
> standards should
> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation 
> should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
> • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate 
> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate 
> that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even 
> a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that 
> particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of 
> selection, especially in the case of civil society and business 
> sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority 
> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a 
> completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection 
> processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum.
> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure 
> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, 
> special interest groups.
>
> *Role and Structure of the MAG*
>
> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time 
> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it 
> will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.
> • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the 
> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying 
> out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further 
> improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG 
> must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. 
> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more 
> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its 
> mandate.
> • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups 
> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of 
> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for 
> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
> • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has 
> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. 
> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 
> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving 
> recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able 
> to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can 
> cohere in the UN Secretary General.
> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 
> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 
> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline 
> plans for the year ahead. We
> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would 
> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and 
> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum 
> beyond 2010.
> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, 
> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be 
> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a 
> need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a 
> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express 
> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF 
> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible 
> for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided 
> with resources needed to perform its role effectively.
> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation 
> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF 
> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
>
> *Special Advisors and Chair*
>
> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for 
> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as 
> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for 
> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors 
> should be kept within a reasonable limit.
> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder 
> nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN 
> Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a 
> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding 
> logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will 
> like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the 
> two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over 
> to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country 
> deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian 
> government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but 
> we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase.
> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present 
> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend 
> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through 
> difficult formative times
>
>
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
> mandate, and why/why not?
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should 
> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
>
> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - 
> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for 
> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity 
> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.
>
> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be 
> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the 
> IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the 
> other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to 
> improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>
> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that 
> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the 
> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring 
> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be 
> sought.
>
> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet 
> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more 
> participative and democratic.
>
> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the 
> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF 
> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to 
> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public 
> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN 
> organization gets involved in the IGF's management.
>
>
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
> processes?
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster 
> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices 
> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
> support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an 
> isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, 
> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet 
> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work 
> and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional 
> fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a 
> capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
>
> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
> competitive and convenient.
>
> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]
>
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, 
> using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing 
> in some regions and to help others to start.
>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
> support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, 
> in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these 
> years.
>
> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from 
> a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, 
> team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare 
> for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in 
> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two 
> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of 
> the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are 
> required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find 
> between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, 
> Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from 
> the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse 
> opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF 
> participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen 
> interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to 
> the IGF.
>
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce 
> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In 
> the past various such innovations have been considered - including 
> speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but 
> always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due 
> to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may 
> be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF 
> as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value 
> to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the 
> production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090712/9c00dde5/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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jul 12 13:04:02 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
Message-ID: <959317.73019.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Have solice my friend,
 
Your work is admirable. Many/most do not add when they agree. We like to say "no news is good news". When you are so busy remember if you and your contribution were not important you would not be busy.

--- On Sun, 7/12/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Cc: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn at gmail.com>, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda at uol.com.br>, "Sylvia Caras" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>, "Garth Graham" <garth.graham at telus.net>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 4:52 PM


Ginger,

I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore. 

Let me first speak  about  parts that are not acceptable to me at all. And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree that for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in the present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this level  of  participation  it may even get difficult to send out a statement in IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity on the list. 

>1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 

>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 

When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of  it basically means  para  72 of TA.  The above response does not  at all deal with  the mandate laid out in para  72. National and regional processes are spoken of  only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not specifically in relation to the IGF.

I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues. 

If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1.

Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can look up past statements. 

parminder 



Ginger Paque wrote: 
Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it today, adding missing parts and working on text. 

I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks. 


1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 

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 


2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 

The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. 

The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 

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. 

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 

Text from Shiva: 

IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. 

As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant: 

(from the meeting transcript) 
IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. 
But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. 
These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days 
deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which 
session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder 
could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become 
some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document 
for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer 
to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the 
idea 
of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with 
this or 
in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not 
comfort 
them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an 
idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in 
complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not 
reflect 
the mood of the IGF. 
So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF 
Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and 
report on 
the mood of IGF. Thank you. 


4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 

At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. 

MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. 

*Membership of the MAG* 

• The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. 
• In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. 
• Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. 
• We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should 
continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. 
• Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. 
• When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. 

*Role and Structure of the MAG* 

With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. 
• One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. 
• It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. 
• We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. 
• MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We 
suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. 
• IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. 
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation 
The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. 
In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. 

*Special Advisors and Chair* 

The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 
We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. 
And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times 


5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 

The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. 

There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened. 

Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. 

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

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

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. 


6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. 

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. 

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. 


Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex 
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more 
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with 
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular 
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options 
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should 
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites 
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and 
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is 
competitive and convenient. 

[Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] 

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. 

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. 

[Text to be re-written by Shiva] 
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the
 IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. 

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. 

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

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


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090712/14def28d/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  Sun Jul 12 13:17:43 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:47:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>
	 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121017h21f4fd8ck52230ced25807e94@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the IGC
response to Q6:

 The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to
be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of
the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable;
Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance
issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a
level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not
represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be
improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various
categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help
improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual
participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF
Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.
If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF,
it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal
allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels
and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the
Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal
budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business,
Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and
the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel
grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program
organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received
for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of
participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented
categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented
participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if
there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in
really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value
to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up
from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a
Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be
taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It
is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant
impact in the quality and diversity of participation.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
http://www.onewebday.org/stories



On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

>   Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.
>
>  Best,
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *POLO Consultores Associados*
>
> *&  IT Trend*
>
> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8*
>
> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.*
>
> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464***
>
>
>
> *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
> *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
> *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Hi Ginger
>
>  Here my feedback
>
>
>
> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> processes?"
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and
> the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, IGF
> shall support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand
> to strength movements already existents in some regions and to help others
> to start.
>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the
> support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a
> regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best to all
>
>
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *POLO Consultores Associados*
>
> *&  IT Trend*
>
> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8*
>
> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.*
>
> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464***
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: Vanda Scartezini
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
>
>
> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
>
> Question 6, stating your point?
>
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
> > Dear all
>
> > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to
> define
>
> > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin
> America)
>
> > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
>
> > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
>
> > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
>
> > communities.
>
> >  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
>
> > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the
>
> > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since
>
> > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage
> IGF
>
> > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>
> > Best to all,
>
> > Vanda Scartezini
>
> > POLO Consultores Associados
>
> > &  IT Trend
>
> > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>
> > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>
> > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>
> > Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>
> > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org';
> 'Ginger
>
> > Paque'
>
> > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
> >
>
> > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can
>
> > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of
>
> > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start
>
> > discussion on that question.
>
> >
>
> > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>
> > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>
> > processes?"
>
> >
>
> > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>
> > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
>
> > review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>
> > participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
>
> > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more
>
> > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through,
>
> > but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> >
>
> > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
>
> > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
>
> > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with
>
> > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an
>
> > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
>
> > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
>
> > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
>
> > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
>
> > based economic and social development.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > For all list information and functions, see:
>
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090712/5737463e/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  Sun Jul 12 13:21:11 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:51:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q6 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com>
	 <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121021i61626019mc10e21e2b1bd608c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would
> you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.   More
> importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could
> be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely
> heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote
> participation.
>
> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:
>
>
>
> “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention*
> to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society,
> including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed
> and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also
> recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.”
>
>
>
> we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005,
> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example,
> it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet
> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in
> a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the
> book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN,
> in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and
> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a
> capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
>
> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
> competitive and convenient.
>
>
>
> [Vanda, edited]
>
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and
> the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the
> IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and
> brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help
> others to start.
>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the
> support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a
> regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to
> address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder
> processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by
> more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting.
>
>
> [Shiva, edited]
> The IGC suggests that the multistakeholder community and the IGF establish
> a program to offer improved funding to extend travel support for panelists.
> Such funds would enable IGF main sessions and workshops to bring in more
> diverse opinions to the IGF including experts who have particular expertise,
> but are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those
> participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have
> difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
>
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures
> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible
> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various
> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated
> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
> representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is -
> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it
> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting
> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public
> policy issues.


In place of the above two paragraphs, the following text may become part of
the the IGC response to Q6:

 The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to
be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of
the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable;
Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance
issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a
level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not
represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be
improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various
categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help
improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual
participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF
Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.
If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF,
it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal
allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels
and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the
Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal
budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business,
Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and
the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel
grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program
organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received
for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of
participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented
categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented
participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if
there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in
really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value
to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up
from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a
Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be
taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It
is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant
impact in the quality and diversity of participation.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
http://www.onewebday.org/stories
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090712/225004c1/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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 13:27:27 2009
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:27:27 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1161f110907121027o5a2055a6rf61b5f60dd0b2eab@mail.gmail.com>

> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>
> ...
> 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.
> ...

Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and
archiving?  Is adding those terms redundant?

" ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and
archiving, as a tool ..."

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 14:27:36 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:57:36 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907121017h21f4fd8ck52230ced25807e94@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>	 <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>	 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br> <fecfce260907121017h21f4fd8ck52230ced25807e94@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com>

Thanks Shiva, this is considerably improved. I have edited the text 
slightly for readability, but otherwise left it the same. I like your 
concept, however, I personally question whether government 
representatives are missing at the IGF due to funding. I also question 
whether funds should be give "unconditionally" for use. Should mention 
be made of the funding already made available? What do others think? 
Best, Ginger


The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund 
the IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the 
quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be 
considered in this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most 
renowned civil society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders 
who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are 
not seen at the IGF, and governments are not represented on a high 
enough level and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent 
all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be 
improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various 
categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may 
help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to 
the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and 
individual participants) would be several times that of the actual 
outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in 
the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible 
and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is 
already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to 
panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion 
of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of 
participation are compromised.

With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the 
 IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by 
unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded 
non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. 
The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ 
honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, 
who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for 
participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of 
participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented 
categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented 
participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented 
regions if there is an individual need ).

Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to 
the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is 
especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from 
contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a 
business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to 
be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants 
unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large 
enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of 
participation.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the 
> IGC response to Q6:
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund 
> the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly 
> better to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There 
> are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or 
> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society 
> opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise 
> committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen 
> at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough and 
> b) The present participants of the IGF does not represent all 
> participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved 
> and it requires various efforts, but availability of various 
> categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may 
> help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of 
> funds.
>
> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to 
> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and 
> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual 
> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected 
> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total 
> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, 
> which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel 
> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a 
> small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels and 
> the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, 
> the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider 
> liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from 
> Business, Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International 
> Organization and the United Nations. The fund may extend 
> uncompromising, comfortable Travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead 
> participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely 
> invitees who are required to be well received for participation), full 
> and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special 
> attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented 
> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even 
> to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual 
> need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse 
> opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value to the 
> IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up 
> from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from 
> a Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions 
> to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants 
> unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large 
> enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of 
> participation.
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
> http://www.onewebday.org/stories
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br 
> <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br>> wrote:
>
>      Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.
>
>      Best,
>
>      
>
>     */Vanda Scartezini/*
>
>     */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>
>     */&  IT Trend/*
>
>     */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>
>     */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>
>     */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>
>     */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>
>      
>
>     *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br
>     <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br>]
>     *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
>     *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
>     *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>'
>     *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>     *Importance:* High
>
>      
>
>     Hi Ginger
>
>      Here my feedback
>
>      
>
>     "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>     improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>     functioning and processes?"
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its
>     term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information
>     and policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world,
>     using its mission and brand to strength movements already
>     existents in some regions and to help others to start.
>
>     The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and
>     the support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the
>     implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion
>     raised during these years.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Best to all
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     */Vanda Scartezini/*
>
>     */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>
>     */&  IT Trend/*
>
>     */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>
>     */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>
>     */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>
>     */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
>     To: Vanda Scartezini
>     Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
>      
>
>     Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
>
>     Question 6, stating your point?
>
>      
>
>     Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
>     > Dear all
>
>     > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal
>     is to define
>
>     > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in
>     Latin America)
>
>     > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order
>     to get
>
>     > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several
>     suggestion,
>
>     > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local
>     governments/
>
>     > communities.
>
>     >  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the
>     table the
>
>     > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to
>     help the
>
>     > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years,
>     and since
>
>     > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to
>     encourage IGF
>
>     > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>
>     > Best to all,
>
>     > Vanda Scartezini
>
>     > POLO Consultores Associados
>
>     > &  IT Trend
>
>     > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>
>     > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>
>     > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>
>     > Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
>     > 
>
>     > 
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>
>     > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>
>     > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>
>     > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>'; 'Ginger
>
>     > Paque'
>
>     > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
>     > 
>
>     > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can
>
>     > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including
>     all of
>
>     > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start
>
>     > discussion on that question.
>
>     > 
>
>     > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>     improvements
>
>     > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>
>     > processes?"
>
>     > 
>
>     > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>
>     > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>     the
>
>     > review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>
>     > participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a
>     review of
>
>     > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to
>     foster more
>
>     > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
>     through,
>
>     > but not limited to, remote participation.
>
>     > 
>
>     > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>     people
>
>     > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
>
>     > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those
>     concerned with
>
>     > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures
>     built on an
>
>     > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
>
>     > governance as ways of responding to specific localized
>     opportunities and
>
>     > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
>
>     > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
>
>     > based economic and social development.
>
>     > 
>
>     > 
>
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>
>     > 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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Sun Jul 12 15:01:46 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:01:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net>

On 12-Jul-09, at 5:41 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little  
> time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version  
> later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I  
> suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last.  
> Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can  
> work them out.

I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates  
of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment  
I'd made is included or covered by existing wording.  I don't see  
that it is.  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and  
I was pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in  
defending fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the  
wording in the responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I  
can see to include it would be under any other comments.

> 7. Do you have any other comments?

For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve  
and deepen understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet  
Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.

Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration  
and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe  
that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition  
of Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a  
matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil  
society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are  
agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The  
development and application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms,  
rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the  
evolution and use of the Internet."

The IGC believes that civil society "in it's role" has a  
responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and  
principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of  
governance.  The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing  
its rules are open.  One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF  
must continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of  
those issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance  
are only beginning to be understood.  Capacity of collaborating  
agencies at any level to use the Internet for development will be  
improved by a deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the  
Internet's existence signifies.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 15:13:00 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:43:00 -0430
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net>
Message-ID: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com>


Garth Graham wrote:
>
> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates 
> of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment 
> I'd made is included or covered by existing wording.  I don't see that 
> it is.  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was 
> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending 
> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the 
> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to 
> include it would be under any other comments.
Thanks Garth.
Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this 
contains some wording that must be discussed. Garth, can you give us the 
definition of "Internet model" of IG that you are using, please?

Thanks! Best, Ginger


7. Do you have any other comments?

For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve and 
deepen the understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet 
Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.

Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration 
and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that 
the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of 
Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a matter 
negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, “in 
their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be 
self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and 
application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, 
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and 
use of the Internet."

The IGC believes that civil society "in its role" has a responsibility 
to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and principles as a 
fundamentally different view of the nature of governance.  The Internet 
is "open" because the rules about changing its rules are open.  One 
reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF must continue to exist and to 
evolve is because the implications of those issues of "narrow and broad 
Internet Governance" for governance are only beginning to be 
understood.  Capacity of collaborating agencies at any level to use the 
Internet for development will be improved by a deeper understanding of, 
and agreement on, what the Internet's existence signifies.

Garth Graham wrote:
>
> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates 
> of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment 
> I'd made is included or covered by existing wording.  I don't see that 
> it is.  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was 
> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending 
> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the 
> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to 
> include it would be under any other comments.
>
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve 
> and deepen understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet 
> Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.
>
> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration 
> and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that 
> the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of 
> Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a matter 
> negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, 
> “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be 
> self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and 
> application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, 
> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution 
> and use of the Internet."
>
> The IGC believes that civil society "in it's role" has a 
> responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and 
> principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of 
> governance.  The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing 
> its rules are open.  One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF must 
> continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of those 
> issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance are 
> only beginning to be understood.  Capacity of collaborating agencies 
> at any level to use the Internet for development will be improved by a 
> deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the Internet's 
> existence signifies.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 15:15:51 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:45:51 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com>

Thanks Parminder. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this.

Please do take over the text for Q1.

I went through the previous IGC statements, and included them where I 
thought appropriate. In fact, that is where most of this text is from. 
However, if there is any other statement we can add, please do suggest 
it, Parminder, or anyone else.

Best, Ginger


Parminder wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors 
> that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore.
>
> Let me first speak  about  parts that are not acceptable to me at all. 
> And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree 
> that for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in 
> the present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this 
> level  of  participation  it may even get difficult to send out a 
> statement in IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity 
> on the list.
>
> >1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
> the Tunis Agenda?
>
> >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
>
> When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of  it 
> basically means  para  72 of TA.  The above response does not  at all 
> deal with  the mandate laid out in para  72. National and regional 
> processes are spoken of  only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not 
> specifically in relation to the IGF.
>
> I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too 
> much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically 
> brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues 
> in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are 
> global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost 
> sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to 
> this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which 
> lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do 
> clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and 
> national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key 
> imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much 
> talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues.
>
> If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1.
>
> Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and 
> structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can 
> look up past statements.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it 
>> today, adding missing parts and working on text.
>>
>> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little 
>> time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later 
>> today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest 
>> we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post 
>> agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. 
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of 
>> openness and universal access. This framework will continue to 
>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in 
>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of 
>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. 
>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, 
>> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality 
>> discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the 
>> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
>> It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern 
>> the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>>
>> Text from Shiva:
>>
>> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process 
>> of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil 
>> Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the 
>> preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments 
>> had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory 
>> process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of 
>> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>>
>> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making 
>> process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at 
>> the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN 
>> meeting may be relevant:
>>
>> (from the meeting transcript)
>> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
>> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
>> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
>> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
>> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
>> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
>> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
>> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
>> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
>> idea
>> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
>> this or
>> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
>> comfort
>> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
>> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions 
>> are taken by government, by businesses in
>> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
>> reflect
>> the mood of the IGF.
>> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
>> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
>> report on
>> the mood of IGF. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out 
>> for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory 
>> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>>
>> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the 
>> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will 
>> like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full 
>> term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official 
>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect 
>> of the IGF.
>>
>> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to 
>> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the 
>> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We 
>> are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open 
>> and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public 
>> importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. 
>> However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that 
>> require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list 
>> should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By 
>> the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face 
>> meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be 
>> dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, 
>> and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate.
>>
>> *Membership of the MAG*
>>
>> • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the 
>> required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, 
>> but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the 
>> present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG 
>> members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
>> • In the interest of transparency and understanding the 
>> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG 
>> we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group 
>> that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG 
>> should be clearly established, and made open along with due 
>> justifications.
>> • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 
>> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
>> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members 
>> among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is 
>> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global 
>> governance.
>> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in 
>> Internet administration and the development of Internet-related 
>> technical standards should
>> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation 
>> should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
>> • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate 
>> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate 
>> that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even 
>> a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that 
>> particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of 
>> selection, especially in the case of civil society and business 
>> sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority 
>> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a 
>> completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection 
>> processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum.
>> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure 
>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, 
>> special interest groups.
>>
>> *Role and Structure of the MAG*
>>
>> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right 
>> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, 
>> it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to 
>> perform.
>> • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for 
>> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with 
>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to 
>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion 
>> that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more 
>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into 
>> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all 
>> aspects of its mandate.
>> • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups 
>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of 
>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for 
>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
>> • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG 
>> has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary 
>> General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which 
>> requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving 
>> recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be 
>> able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these 
>> tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.
>> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 
>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 
>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also 
>> outline plans for the year ahead. We
>> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, 
>> would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis 
>> Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of 
>> continuing the Forum beyond 2010.
>> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, 
>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be 
>> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such 
>> a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
>> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of 
>> a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
>> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We 
>> express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF 
>> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been 
>> responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should 
>> be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively.
>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the 
>> participation of people from developing and least developed countries 
>> in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
>>
>> *Special Advisors and Chair*
>>
>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria 
>> for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, 
>> as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind 
>> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors 
>> should be kept within a reasonable limit.
>> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder 
>> nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the 
>> UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a 
>> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding 
>> logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will 
>> like to understand the division of work and responsibility between 
>> the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move 
>> over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host 
>> country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the 
>> Indian government representative has already taken over as the 
>> co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase.
>> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present 
>> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend 
>> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through 
>> difficult formative times
>>
>>
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should 
>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
>>
>> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF - 
>> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for 
>> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity 
>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.
>>
>> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be 
>> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the 
>> IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the 
>> other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to 
>> improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>>
>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that 
>> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the 
>> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring 
>> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can 
>> be sought.
>>
>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet 
>> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more 
>> participative and democratic.
>>
>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the 
>> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF 
>> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to 
>> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public 
>> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN 
>> organization gets involved in the IGF's management.
>>
>>
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
>> processes?
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
>> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster 
>> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices 
>> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
>> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes 
>> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
>> support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
>> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable 
>> in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental 
>> summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for 
>> the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an 
>> isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, 
>> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet 
>> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most 
>> work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and 
>> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of 
>> a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
>> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
>> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
>> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
>> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
>> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
>> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
>> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
>> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
>> competitive and convenient.
>>
>> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]
>>
>> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
>> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
>> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, 
>> using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing 
>> in some regions and to help others to start.
>>
>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and 
>> the support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the 
>> implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion 
>> raised during these years.
>>
>> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
>> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to 
>> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support 
>> from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for 
>> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend 
>> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel 
>> speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard 
>> class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for 
>> distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of 
>> the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact 
>> that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile 
>> individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require 
>> the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support 
>> from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International 
>> Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to 
>> bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not 
>> the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who 
>> have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in 
>> traveling to the IGF.
>>
>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce 
>> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In 
>> the past various such innovations have been considered - including 
>> speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but 
>> always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due 
>> to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may 
>> be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF 
>> as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its 
>> value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the 
>> production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 15:28:26 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:58:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
In-Reply-To: <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com>
References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com>
	 <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com>
	 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJnMGSbP1EZDmJ9JTcpKP5rCgAAAEAAAAALvdpbiQL1MsIIqhucdHFcBAAAAAA==@uol.com.br>
	 <fecfce260907121017h21f4fd8ck52230ced25807e94@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121228k69695ff6k1128dda90423ac70@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

There were two paragraphs in Ginger's original text in the section
pertaining to funding. The text I proposed was proposed to replace the first
of those two paragraphs, not both the paragraphs. In Ginger's earlier edit
Para 2 in that section talked about something different.

My response to this mail is inline.

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Shiva, this is considerably improved. I have edited the text
> slightly for readability, but otherwise left it the same. I like your
> concept, however, I personally question whether government representatives
> are missing at the IGF due to funding. I also question whether funds should
> be give "unconditionally" for use. Should mention be made of the funding
> already made available? What do others think? Best, Ginger
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
> IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the quality
> and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in
> this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most renowned civil
> society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders who are otherwise
> committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and
> governments are not represented on a high enough level


[ Those Governments that already participate at the IGF may have to be urged
to participate with greater involvement with a higher level delegation, and
for these governments that have not had difficulty in funding their
delegations so far, this point is irrelevant. But there are other
Governments in the world for whom funding participation in IGF may not be a
considerable priority, and in some cases even unaffordable. So there was a
reference to Governmental representation in that preambulatory point. We may
have to add that not all Governments are so far represented at the IGF ]


> and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant
> segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires
> various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for
> different classes of participants may help improve participation by those
> not attending the IGF for want of funds.


[ here we may say, "IGF already has made some funds available for
representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a
limited objective ]


> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
> IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual
> participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF
> Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.
> If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF,
> it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal
> allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
> amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of
> panels and the diversity of participation are compromised.
>
> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF
> should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional
> grants


[ unconditional does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without
even the basic condidtions that the recipient should attend the IGF and
attend the sessions etc.  In this context "unconditional" means something
larger. If a Network Computer Corporation offers me a Travel Grant and I
happen to be a panelist in a session on Cloud Computing, I may be normally
expected to present a line of argument that propagates that the Cloud
Computing is very positive. I am talking about a system of Travel Grants
whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments,
International Organizations, NGOs and UN, of which even if a sizable portion
happens to be from that Network Computer Corporation (fictional), I will
receive a travel grant and still be free to challenge the very concept of
cloud computing, if that is what I believe in. This is the unconditionality
that I have implied. More often than not Civil Society is funded by Donors
who sometimes make the recipient feel obliged in some way. The idea is to
appeal for funds from Donors who are beyond narrow considerations. I would
like to be funded by facebook for participation and still be free to
challenge facebook's privacy policy, if I feel that there is something to be
challenged. And would expect an entity as large as facebook to be beyond
such narrow considerations as to expect me to applaud its policies as a
recipient of funds ]

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international
> organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising,
> comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel
> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to
> be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large
> number of participants with special attention to participants from
> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or
> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent,
> represented regions if there is an individual need ).
>
> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the
> IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially
> recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are
> unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or
> implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to
> panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF
> create a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and
> diversity of participation.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the IGC
>> response to Q6:
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
>> IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
>> improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to
>> be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of
>> the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable;
>> Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance
>> issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a
>> level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not
>> represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be
>> improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various
>> categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help
>> improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.
>>
>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
>> IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual
>> participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF
>> Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.
>> If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF,
>> it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal
>> allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
>> amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels
>> and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the
>> Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal
>> budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business,
>> Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and
>> the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel
>> grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program
>> organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received
>> for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of
>> participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented
>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented
>> participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if
>> there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in
>> really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value
>> to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up
>> from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a
>> Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be
>> taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It
>> is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant
>> impact in the quality and diversity of participation.
>>
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>> http://www.onewebday.org/stories
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br<mailto:
>> vanda at uol.com.br>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>
>>    */Vanda Scartezini/*
>>
>>    */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>>
>>    */&  IT Trend/*
>>
>>    */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>>
>>    */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>>
>>    */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>>
>>    */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>>
>>
>>    *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br
>>    <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br>]
>>    *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
>>    *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
>>    *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>'
>>
>>    *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>>    *Importance:* High
>>
>>
>>    Hi Ginger
>>
>>     Here my feedback
>>
>>
>>    "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>    improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
>>    functioning and processes?"
>>
>>
>>
>>    Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its
>>    term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information
>>    and policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world,
>>    using its mission and brand to strength movements already
>>    existents in some regions and to help others to start.
>>
>>    The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and
>>    the support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the
>>    implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion
>>    raised during these years.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Best to all
>>
>>
>>
>>    */Vanda Scartezini/*
>>
>>    */POLO Consultores Associados/*
>>
>>    */&  IT Trend/*
>>
>>    */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/*
>>
>>    */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./*
>>
>>    */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/*
>>
>>    */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*//
>>
>>    -----Original Message-----
>>    From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>>    Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
>>    To: Vanda Scartezini
>>    Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>    Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>>
>>
>>    Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
>>
>>    Question 6, stating your point?
>>
>>
>>    Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>>
>>    > Dear all
>>
>>    > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal
>>    is to define
>>
>>    > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in
>>    Latin America)
>>
>>    > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order
>>    to get
>>
>>    > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several
>>    suggestion,
>>
>>    > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local
>>    governments/
>>
>>    > communities.
>>
>>    >  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the
>>    table the
>>
>>    > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to
>>    help the
>>
>>    > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years,
>>    and since
>>
>>    > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to
>>    encourage IGF
>>
>>    > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>>
>>    > Best to all,
>>
>>    > Vanda Scartezini
>>
>>    > POLO Consultores Associados
>>
>>    > &  IT Trend
>>
>>    > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>>
>>    > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>>
>>    > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>>
>>    > Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>>
>>    >
>>    >
>>    > -----Original Message-----
>>
>>    > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>>
>>    > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>>
>>    > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>    <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>'; 'Ginger
>>
>>    > Paque'
>>
>>    > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>>
>>    >
>>    > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can
>>
>>    > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including
>>    all of
>>
>>    > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start
>>
>>    > discussion on that question.
>>
>>    >
>>    > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>>    improvements
>>
>>    > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>>
>>    > processes?"
>>
>>    >
>>    > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>
>>    > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that
>>    the
>>
>>    > review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>>
>>    > participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a
>>    review of
>>
>>    > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to
>>    foster more
>>
>>    > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
>>    through,
>>
>>    > but not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>>    >
>>    > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>    people
>>
>>    > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
>>
>>    > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those
>>    concerned with
>>
>>    > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures
>>    built on an
>>
>>    > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
>>
>>    > governance as ways of responding to specific localized
>>    opportunities and
>>
>>    > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
>>
>>    > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
>>
>>    > based economic and social development.
>>
>>    >
>>    >
>>    > ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>    > 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
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/efb01444/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 garth.graham at telus.net  Sun Jul 12 16:27:30 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:27:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5A8CD-1F46-4038-8B85-C81A3D36F217@telus.net>

On 12-Jul-09, at 12:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>  Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG  
> that you are using, please?

Yup....

"The Internet’s success is largely due to its unique model
The Internet model:
• Shared global ownership without central control
• Collaborative engagement models (involves researchers, business,  
civil society, academia, governments)
• Development based on open standards (which are also openly  
developed, with participation based on knowledge rather than formal  
membership)
• Key principles (such as the “end-to-end principle”)
• An open, bottom-up, freely accessible, public, multi-stakeholder  
processes for both technology and policy development "

...quoting Bill Graham, ISOC, Strategic Global Engagement  http:// 
www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/aba-igov-20080809.pdf____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 16:28:05 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:58:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3
In-Reply-To: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>
References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121328o6ec4b72oeafa6848a32de12f@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

The following is a provisional draft in repsonse to Q3. On this response to
the questions that Ginger has raised as also other inputs are to be
incorporated

The Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on the
policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's
perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During
the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an
opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the
IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This
'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process
promotes faith in the functionality of the particiaptory governance process
and could inspire National Governments to emulate the particiaptory process)

As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to
decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the
IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due
to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments
and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the
deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with
different expertise from various staekholder groups from various geographic
regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues to
contribute to the actual policy making process .IGF could devise a system by
which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of
stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF. Though this may not
constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF,
such Session/Topic Reports that could be released under different topic
headings and could become Reference Documents that could contribute to the
National / Regional policy making process.

Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF
Referece Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a
new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed
Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of
Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on
stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud
Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National /
Regional Policy making process to compreshnsively and readily understand the
"mood" of the IGF on a topic on which legislations are to be enacted. At
present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations
largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations so the decision taken often do
not take into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor the solutions
proposed by the IGF.

The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers
this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to throughly record all
sessions by text transcripts and collated audio visual records as source
records, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder
position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF Secreatriat may also
proactively reach out to Governments to uge them to adopt it as a convention
to call for IGF Position papers and related documents to be used as inputs
in their policy making process.,

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shiva is actively working on Q3.
>
> I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of
> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I
> think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and
> far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to
> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that
> include business, government, academia and civil society working together.
>
> We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as
> well:
>
> *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it
> impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted
> as a catalyst for change?*
> You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a lot
> of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by the
> way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt,
> eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get
> meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the
> lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
> governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other
> peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement
> changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues”
> etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding
> of what the impact might have been.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/99880b4c/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 Jul 12 16:48:49 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:48:49 +1000
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C6808951.3F14%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Ginger, 

My time is going to be even worse than I thought this week - like Parminder,
several factors have fallen into a rare confluence. Not sure I will be able
to participate further, but I do appreciate all your efforts and know from
past experience how much energy is needed to try to get together a consensus
statement here. 

So a few comments below. I may not be able to follow discussions of each
question, and will personally find it easier to keep commenting on a
completed draft.


On 12/07/09 10:41 PM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it
> today, adding missing parts and working on text.
> 
> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time.
> Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so
> please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get
> consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement /
> objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
> the Tunis Agenda?
> 
> The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes
> at the national, regionalŠ 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
> 
Others have commented here. I also bear in mind Jeremy's comments. I believe
we can say that broadly speaking the mandate has been fulfilled.

> 
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
> 
> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness
> and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the
> importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet
> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access
> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with
> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of
> the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
> 
> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the
> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It
> allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the
> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
> 
> 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 think here we might be better off just saying we believe that in general
IGF has embodied the WSIS principles . Not sure how rights and principles
fits in here or whether such a long expose of this issue is appropriate here
> 
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
> acted as a catalyst for change?
> 
> Text from Shiva:
> 
> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of
> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity
> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase
> as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to
> experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are
> becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable'
> equality is largely an IGF achievement.

I think this is good, but the text below IMHO is not suitable. I don't think
we should say direct impact has been minimal. I think we should say that in
the absence of a larger scale evaluation it would be difficult to measure
direct and indirect impact.
> 
> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process
> has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A
> point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be
> relevant:
> 
> (from the meeting transcript)
> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
> idea
> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
> this or
> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
> comfort
> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are
> taken by government, by businesses in
> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
> reflect
> the mood of the IGF.
> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
> report on
> the mood of IGF. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
> 
> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the
> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like
> to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term
> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official
> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of
> the IGF.
> 
> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to
> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the
> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are
> of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the
> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally
> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand
> that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions.
> All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries
> of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should
> be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics
> are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such
> topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as
> appropriate.
> 
> *Membership of the MAG*
> 
> € The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required
> balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so
> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present
> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One
> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
> € In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities
> of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the
> Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is
> associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly
> established, and made open along with due justifications.
> € Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder
> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be
> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among
> all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary
> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
> administration and the development of Internet-related technical
> standards should
> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
> should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
> € Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate
> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that
> it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given
> set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular
> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially
> in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope
> for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This,
> however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations
> from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept
> to the minimum.
> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
> interest groups.
> 
> *Role and Structure of the MAG*
> 
> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time
> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will
> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.
> € One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the
> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out
> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the
> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its
> decision making processes to make them more effective. These are
> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what
> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate.
> € It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups
> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of
> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for
> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
> € We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has
> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General.
> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires
> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations'
> etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the
> IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN
> Secretary General.
> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should
> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant
> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline
> plans for the year ahead. We
> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would
> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and
> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum
> beyond 2010.
> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which
> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out
> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is
> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a
> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to
> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express
> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat.
> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of
> the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources
> needed to perform its role effectively.
> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation
> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF
> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
> 
> *Special Advisors and Chair*
> 
> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for
> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as
> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for
> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should
> be kept within a reasonable limit.
> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature
> of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN
> Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy
> chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues
> for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the
> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the
> present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested
> new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the
> Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative
> has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now
> about the post-Hyderabad phase.
> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present
> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend
> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through
> difficult formative times

No problem in general with the content above but it does need a substantial
edit to be relevant to current question
> 
> 
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
> mandate, and why/why not?
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should
> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
> 
> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF -
> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for
> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.
> 
> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be
> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF
> is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other
> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its
> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
> 
> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are
> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to
> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.
> 
> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet
> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more
> participative and democratic.
> 
> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last
> few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be
> assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its
> functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To
> this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets
> involved in the IGF's management.

I agree with this section
> 
> 
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> processes?

There seem to be three suggestions below - remote participation, regional
forums, and secretariat funding. I agree with inclusion of all, but also
endorse Parminder's comments on emphasis on regional forums.

I aLSO believe we should not be too prescriptive as regards funding. Yes we
need to mention it and give examples and call for more. Beyond that it might
be difficult to get agreement
> 
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more
> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through,
> but not limited to, remote participation.
> 
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with
> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an
> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
> based economic and social development.
> 
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in
> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.
> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the
> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated
> face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF
> should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and
> for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the
> work done elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
> competitive and convenient.
> 
> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]
> 
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term
> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and
> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using
> its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some
> regions and to help others to start.
> 
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the
> support of IGF ­ will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in
> a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.
> 
> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to
> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a
> Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for
> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend
> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers,
> team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for
> distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess
> of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended
> hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel
> speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 -
> $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded
> NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would
> enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from
> Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those
> participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have
> difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
> 
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more
> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past
> various such innovations have been considered - including speed
> dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always
> the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the
> reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be
> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a
> whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the
> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of
> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
> 
> 7. Do you have any other comments?


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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 16:52:55 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:22:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907121328o6ec4b72oeafa6848a32de12f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>
	 <fecfce260907121328o6ec4b72oeafa6848a32de12f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121352i37661bf5nff486eb7844c832b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

The following is a more complete response to Q3:

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,



The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the level of
> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that
> there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it
> could also be said that far less confrontation. It could also be said that
> as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is more and more improvement on
> these aspects. ( For instance, In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the
> request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that
> include business, government, academia and civil society working together. -
> should we say this ?)



> The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed
> differently to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen
> that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the
> flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn gets shared and influences the
> respective stakeholder groups. To different questions such as "Has your
> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? , "Has
> your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has
> assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the  multi-stakeholder
> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance
> issues?" etc.may elicit a positive response.



> Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on
> the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's
> perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During
> the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an
> opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the
> IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This
> 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process
> promotes faith in the functionality of the particiaptory governance process
> and could inspire National Governments to emulate the particiaptory process)
>
> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to
> decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the
> IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due
> to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments
> and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the
> deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with
> different expertise from various staekholder groups from various geographic
> regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues to
> contribute to the actual policy making process .IGF could devise a system by
> which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of
> stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF. Though this may not
> constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF,
> such Session/Topic Reports that could be released under different topic
> headings and could become Reference Documents that could contribute to the
> National / Regional policy making process.
>
> Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF
> Referece Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a
> new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed
> Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of
> Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on
> stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud
> Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National /
> Regional Policy making process to compreshnsively and readily understand the
> "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which legislations are to be enacted. At
> present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations
> largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations so the decision taken often do
> not take into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor the solutions
> proposed by the IGF.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers
> this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to throughly record all
> sessions by text transcripts and collated audio visual records as source
> records, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder
> position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF Secreatriat may also
> proactively reach out to Governments to uge them to adopt it as a convention
> to call for IGF Position papers and related documents to be used as inputs
> in their policy making process.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shiva is actively working on Q3.
>>
>> I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of
>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I
>> think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and
>> far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to
>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that
>> include business, government, academia and civil society working together.
>>
>> We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as
>> well:
>>
>> *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
>> acted as a catalyst for change?*
>> You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a lot
>> of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by the
>> way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt,
>> eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get
>> meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the
>> lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
>> governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other
>> peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement
>> changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues”
>> etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding
>> of what the impact might have been.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/0706a79a/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  Sun Jul 12 17:20:10 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:20:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras
Message-ID: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC>


I may have lost the thread here so apologies in advance if this section has
already been revised but here below is Siva's first suggested para with some
interspersed comments.

The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
improve the quality and diversity of participation.
 
I THINK THIS IS RATHER INSULTING TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING AND
THE ISSUE OF "quality" OF PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE DROPPED.


There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or
non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion
leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to
social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF;
Governments are not represented on a level high enough

HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS"
(IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL
CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE
SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
BE. 

AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL
SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL
SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR LEADERS
OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS
PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT.

IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY
WITH GOVERNMENTS. 

I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...

M

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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 17:45:22 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:15:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907121352i37661bf5nff486eb7844c832b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>
	 <fecfce260907121328o6ec4b72oeafa6848a32de12f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fecfce260907121352i37661bf5nff486eb7844c832b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121445o73ba6a56o9e102c5ae5d83dd8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> The following is a more complete response to Q3:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>
>
( statement further fine-tuned. Finer changes are inlaid into the following
text)

>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the level of
>> discussions between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that
>> there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it
>> could also be said that there is far less confrontation. It could also be
>> said that as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is increasing
>> constructive collaboration. ( For instance, In the 2009 workshop proposals,
>> due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are
>> panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working
>> together. - should we say this ?)
>
>
>
>> The impact of the IGF could be seen on a deeper level rather than
>> superficially. If the question is posed differently to examine the impact of
>> the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals
>> or organizations, the participants have gained from the flow of knowledge at
>> the IGF which in turn gets shared and influences the respective stakeholder
>> groups and others.Variant questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF
>> increased your knowledge of internet governance? , "Has your involvement led
>> to meaningful contact with other peers who have assisted in your work? and
>> "Has your participation in the  multi-stakeholder process changed or
>> affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" etc.may
>> elicit a positive response.
>
>
>
>> Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on
>> the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's
>> perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During
>> the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an
>> opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process and
>> they are becoming comfortable with the idea and process of consultation.
>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process
>> promotes faith in the functionality of the participatory governance process
>> and could inspire National Governments to emulate the participatory process)
>>
>>
>> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to
>> decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the
>> IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due
>> to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments
>> and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the
>> deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with
>> different expertise from various stakeholder groups from various geographic
>> regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but
>> these valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been systematically
>> channeled to contribute to the actual policy making process. IGF could
>> devise a system by which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to
>> summarize the positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during
>> the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a
>> "formal statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports could be
>> released under different topic headings and could become Reference Documents
>> to contribute to the National / Regional policy making process.
>>
>> Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF
>> Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a
>> new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed
>> Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of
>> Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on
>> stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud
>> Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National /
>> Regional Policy making process to comprehensively and readily understand the
>> "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/ directive/
>> guideline is being considered. At present decisions are taken by governments
>> and by business corporations largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations,
>> without  taking into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the
>> solutions proposed by the IGF.
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers
>> this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to thoroughly record as
>> audio-visuals collated with text transcripts and presentations to be
>> archives as source records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable,
>> open forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the
>> Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing skills to prepare
>> consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF
>> Secretariat may also proactively reach out to Governments to urge them to
>> adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related
>> documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shiva is actively working on Q3.
>>>
>>> I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of
>>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I
>>> think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and
>>> far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to
>>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that
>>> include business, government, academia and civil society working together.
>>>
>>> We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as
>>> well:
>>>
>>> *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
>>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
>>> acted as a catalyst for change?*
>>> You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a
>>> lot of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by
>>> the way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have
>>> learnt, eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get
>>> meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the
>>> lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
>>> governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other
>>> peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement
>>> changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues”
>>> etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding
>>> of what the impact might have been.
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/3cd19a9d/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  Sun Jul 12 18:18:01 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:48:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC>
References: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Michael Gurstein,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I may have lost the thread here so apologies in advance if this section has
> already been revised but here below is Siva's first suggested para with
> some
> interspersed comments.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
> IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
> improve the quality and diversity of participation.
>
> I THINK THIS IS RATHER INSULTING TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING AND
> THE ISSUE OF "quality" OF PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE DROPPED.
>

It is not at all implied that the quality of participation is absent.
Quality of participation is referred to here as a quest for constant
improvement, further improvement,

I am a participant, am I insulting me ?

"The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further
enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation"
sounds better?


>
> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or
> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society
> opinion
> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to
> social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF;
> Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>
> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS"
> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL
> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE
> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
> BE.
>
> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL
> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL
> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR
> LEADERS
> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS
> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT.
>
> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY
> WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>
> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...


I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a
positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants
constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


>
>
> M
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090713/56cf3251/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  Sun Jul 12 20:42:40 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:42:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>

Hi,

-----Original Message-----
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras


Hello Michael Gurstein,


On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:





"The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further
enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation"
sounds better?  

 YES... 



There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or
non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion
leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to
social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF;
Governments are not represented on a level high enough

HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS"
(IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL
CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE
SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
BE.

AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL
SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL
SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR LEADERS
OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS
PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT.

IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY
WITH GOVERNMENTS.

I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...


I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a
positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants
constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ?  
 
NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA SHIVA WOULD
HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
 
HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER MORE USEFUL,
"RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO
DO ON THE GROUND.
 
MBG
 

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
 



  
M

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090712/7ef70c58/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  Mon Jul 13 00:27:31 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:57:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>
References: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Michael Gurstein

A quick reply and a little more later.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras
>
> Hello Michael Gurstein,
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
>> IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further
>> enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation"
>> sounds better?
>>
>>  YES...
>
> Thanks.

>
>>
>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or
>> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society
>> opinion
>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to
>> social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF;
>> Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>>
>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION
>> LEADERS"
>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL
>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE
>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS
>> MIGHT
>> BE.
>>
>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR
>> LEADERS
>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS
>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT.
>>
>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME,
>> IF
>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND
>> SIMILARLY
>> WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>>
>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>
>
> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a
> positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants
> constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ?
>
> NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA SHIVA WOULD
> HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>
> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana Shiva is
an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of these names,
nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know or associated
with.  Looks like you are reading between the lines of what I write.

>
> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER MORE USEFUL,
> "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE
> ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO
> DO ON THE GROUND.
>
> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your comment.
Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian point of view? I am
not. I am born in India, a participant from India, I have faith in and
respect for my country but I believe that in an International context I am
at least a little wider than a national.  I have been inspired by teachers
who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a prejudice" which is
profound thinking which in depths implies that one must be beyond being
patriotic and be rather global.

(Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have
written a little later)

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.



>
> MBG
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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/20090713/7e8b02ad/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 Jul 13 01:29:31 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:59:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <CAD5A8CD-1F46-4038-8B85-C81A3D36F217@telus.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> <CAD5A8CD-1F46-4038-8B85-C81A3D36F217@telus.net>
Message-ID: <4A5AC63B.20205@itforchange.net>



Garth Graham wrote:
> On 12-Jul-09, at 12:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>  Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG that 
>> you are using, please?
>
> Yup....
>
> "The Internet’s success is largely due to its unique model
Yes, and and the failure of IG to protect public interest is also 
largely to its 'unique' non-working model. One must distinguish between 
a technology model and a governance and policy model about it. Internet 
is the defining paradigm of new social structures that definitionally 
have deep socio-political implications - FoE, privacy, equity, social 
justice, rights etc. These implications are of a very different nature 
than the issues involved in developing the basic technology model (while 
they are closely connected too).  Free-for-all 'governance' systems in 
relation to these socio-political issues is called the 
law-of-the-jungle. And the impact of it has shown.

> The Internet model:
> • Shared global ownership without central control
> • Collaborative engagement models (involves researchers, business, 
> civil society, academia, governments)
> • Development based on open standards (which are also openly 
> developed, with participation based on knowledge rather than formal 
> membership)
Techno-centred thinking valorising meritocracy over democracy is one of 
the problems here, and your description above illustrates that problem. 
Participation and rights based on 'knowledge' !!!! Nothing will kill 
democracy faster - it is very Nietzschian .

> • Key principles (such as the “end-to-end principle”)
The best example to show how the law-of-the-jungle is working in IG 
arena as Nero plays the flute of bottom-up and peership. The 'end-to-end 
principle' is dying in front of our eyes, daily there are transgressions 
on it, and soon it will be too late. The Internet we know will be gone. 
Only way to confront this situation is a convergent political position 
and action by the global community, but that can t come through your 
'Internet model of govenrance', can it. Pl do tell me if it can. I am 
most interested in urgent resolution of this problem and will join in 
with any kind of action for this purpose. And if you indeed have no 
solution to this basic IG issue, pl stop selling this Internet model at 
least in areas of socio-political significance, because it does a lot of 
harm to devleping appropriate govenracne structures for the Internet.

I do think the Internet has changed (and will further change) the 
institutions and structures of governance as it changes every other 
institution/ structure. However, the change is not such a complete 
make-over to call it an Internet model of governance. Internet provided 
new models of participation and decision making, deepening democracy, 
can take us to new levels of 'public transparency' etc.... however, this 
all is not what you seem to think is the emerging Internet-influenced 
new model of governance, and thus I am completely against your 'Internet 
model of governance'.

> • An open, bottom-up, freely accessible, public, multi-stakeholder 
> processes for both technology and policy development "
>
> ...quoting Bill Graham, ISOC, Strategic Global Engagement  
> http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/aba-igov-20080809.pdf____________________________________________________________ 
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jul 13 02:47:15 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:47:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ginger,

The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer  
specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the  
entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies  
generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will  
leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands  
the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has  
advocated for the past seven years.  I oppose including such  
language.  It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant  
statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved  
back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't  
have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore.   
However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from  
Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8

[The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should  
be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement  
of governments, the private sector, civil society and international  
organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the  
WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote  
and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in  
Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any  
follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.  
The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic  
activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s  
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added  
as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help  
kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main  
session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general  
applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily  
assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could  
consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms,  
and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.]

We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting  
consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and  
suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of  
those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis  
mandate.  Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE  
initiative as a building block for such an effort.

If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do  
so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?"  In that context, it  
might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet  
governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend  
that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should  
be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how).

Best,

Bill

On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>
> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives  
> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12  
> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the  
> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to  
> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented  
> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and  
> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities  
> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their  
> sustainable development and improving their quality of life,  
> premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United  
> Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration  
> of Human Rights.
>
> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human  
> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and  
> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a  
> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation  
> of the IGF.
>
> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of  
> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to  
> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in  
> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of  
> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice.  
> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open  
> Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network  
> neutrality discussions.
>
> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion  
> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each  
> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should  
> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jul 13 03:01:45 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:01:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>
> Garth Graham wrote:
>>
>> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later  
>> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a  
>> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing  
>> wording.  I don't see that it is.
>>  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was  
>> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending  
>> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the  
>> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to  
>> include it would be under any other comments.
> Thanks Garth.
> Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this  
> contains some wording that must be discussed.

I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here.  This text  
was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that  
it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics  
surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter.   
Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've  
gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we  
were the principal and most consistent advocates.  Hence, if the  
process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- 
opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material.

My previous response on this included below for reference.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence  
>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a  
>> particular issue.
>
> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re:  
> this statement.  There were also expressions of interest in using  
> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful.
>>
>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,  
>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs,  
>> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG  
>> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather  
>> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
>> civil society, “in their respective roles,”  if roles and  
>> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition  
>> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared  
>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and  
>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>
> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was  
> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there  
> and beyond in WSIS.  Its adoption helped put aside some very  
> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments,  
> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and  
> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion  
> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG.  It  
> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of  
> our more definable contributions to the process.  This is especially  
> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the  
> definition.  The definition does not in any way say that IG is  
> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
> civil society.  IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can  
> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle  
> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom),  
> etc.  And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG  
> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the  
> concern it has already been met.  One can read the WGIG report and  
> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the  
> related scholarly and policy literatures.  Finally, as has been  
> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective  
> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political  
> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi  
> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are  
> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public  
> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN).   
> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent  
> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is,  
> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 13 04:53:38 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:23:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net> <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5AF612.5070100@itforchange.net>

the following is my first shot at question i.

*To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the 
Tunis Agenda?*

IGF's mandate given by TA is specifically set in its para 72, while the 
imperatives that led to its creation are contained in preceding paras of 
TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public 
policy making in this area.

In terms of its principal mandate, IGF seems largely to be on its way to 
become a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on IG. 
However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary 
innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up 
the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that IGF 
takes up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue 
on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real 
policy making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from 
how much did it manage to influence these real policy making processes. 
If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that 
IGF is moving towards it but not quite yet there. It needs to continue 
to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enables 'effective and 
purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent 
resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of 
real policy making.

In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area 
of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different 
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' ( 
section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental 
organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 
c).

IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its 
mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing 
ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the 
Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying 
emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'.

It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at 
least three areas

   1.

      Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin
      talking with each other, and at least start to see the others
      point of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial
      step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and
      different governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones.

   2.

      Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer
      participants, especially from developing countries with
      under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.

   3.

      Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder
      dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactively
      between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives
      (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way).



Ginger Paque wrote:
> Thanks Parminder. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this.
>
> Please do take over the text for Q1.
>
> I went through the previous IGC statements, and included them where I 
> thought appropriate. In fact, that is where most of this text is from. 
> However, if there is any other statement we can add, please do suggest 
> it, Parminder, or anyone else.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/1f9e2ecc/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 Jul 13 05:28:18 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:58:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net>



William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger,
>
> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer 
> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the 
> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies 
> generally. 
Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' WSIS 
principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further clearer the 
current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS principles include DoP 
(Geneva declaration of principles) principles. To quote the paper

"This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the Geneva 
Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society"



I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined 
construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in para 72 
of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, transparent, democratic 
and multistakeholder -   that you mention. The present state of 
discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position that WSIS principles 
basically means all of 'DoP plus' which includes the four principles 
that you mention. In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG 
was that rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section 
in IGF - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 
'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society  
want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' approach 
that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents.

parminder


> As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will leave other 
> parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands the 
> negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has advocated 
> for the past seven years.  I oppose including such language.  It would 
> be preferable to build off of one of the relevant statements on the 
> matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved back when more 
> people were participating, but unfortunately we don't have a complete 
> archive and I don't have everything saved anymore.  However, I do see 
> at least one text online that could be adapted, from Feb. 2008, 
> www.igcaucus.org/node/8
>
> [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should 
> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement 
> of governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
> organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the 
> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote 
> and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in 
> Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any 
> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. 
> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic 
> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s 
> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added 
> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help 
> kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main 
> session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general 
> applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily 
> assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could 
> consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, 
> and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.]
>
> We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting 
> consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and 
> suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
> mandate.  Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE 
> initiative as a building block for such an effort.
>
> If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do 
> so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?"  In that context, it 
> might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet 
> governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend 
> that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should 
> be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how).
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives 
>> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 
>> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the 
>> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to 
>> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented 
>> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and 
>> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities 
>> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their 
>> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised 
>> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
>> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human 
>> Rights.
>>
>> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human 
>> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and 
>> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a 
>> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation 
>> of the IGF.
>>
>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to 
>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in 
>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of 
>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. 
>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, 
>> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality 
>> discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion 
>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each 
>> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should 
>> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090713/135c51d0/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 Jul 13 06:41:05 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:41:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <8AC1CD4521F54BC997813FF145DA49B7@userPC>

Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think
without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the
reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is
not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather
suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other)
circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either
here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours.

(I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community
Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor
throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual
community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its
own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!)

Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language
and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps
not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at
dog's life speed.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals


Hi,

On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>
> Garth Graham wrote:
>>
>> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later
>> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a  
>> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing  
>> wording.  I don't see that it is.
>>  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was  
>> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending  
>> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the  
>> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to  
>> include it would be under any other comments.
> Thanks Garth.
> Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this
> contains some wording that must be discussed.

I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here.  This text  
was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that  
it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics  
surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter.   
Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've  
gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we  
were the principal and most consistent advocates.  Hence, if the  
process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- 
opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material.

My previous response on this included below for reference.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence
>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a  
>> particular issue.
>
> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re:
> this statement.  There were also expressions of interest in using  
> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful.
>>
>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs,  
>> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG  
>> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather  
>> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
>> civil society, "in their respective roles,"  if roles and  
>> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition  
>> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared  
>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and  
>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>
> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was
> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there  
> and beyond in WSIS.  Its adoption helped put aside some very  
> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments,  
> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and  
> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion  
> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG.  It  
> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of  
> our more definable contributions to the process.  This is especially  
> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the  
> definition.  The definition does not in any way say that IG is  
> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
> civil society.  IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can  
> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle  
> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom),  
> etc.  And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG  
> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the  
> concern it has already been met.  One can read the WGIG report and  
> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the  
> related scholarly and policy literatures.  Finally, as has been  
> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective  
> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political  
> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi  
> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are  
> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public  
> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN).   
> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent  
> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is,  
> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context.

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 13 06:50:13 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:50:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC>

Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think
without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the
reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is
not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather
suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other)
circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either
here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours.

(I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community
Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor
throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual
community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its
own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!)

Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language
and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps
not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at
dog's life speed.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals


Hi,

On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>
> Garth Graham wrote:
>>
>> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later
>> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a  
>> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing  
>> wording.  I don't see that it is.
>>  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was  
>> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending  
>> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the  
>> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to  
>> include it would be under any other comments.
> Thanks Garth.
> Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this
> contains some wording that must be discussed.

I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here.  This text  
was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that  
it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics  
surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter.   
Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've  
gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we  
were the principal and most consistent advocates.  Hence, if the  
process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- 
opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material.

My previous response on this included below for reference.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence
>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a  
>> particular issue.
>
> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re:
> this statement.  There were also expressions of interest in using  
> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful.
>>
>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs,  
>> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG  
>> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather  
>> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
>> civil society, "in their respective roles,"  if roles and  
>> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition  
>> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared  
>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and  
>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>
> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was
> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there  
> and beyond in WSIS.  Its adoption helped put aside some very  
> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments,  
> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and  
> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion  
> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG.  It  
> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of  
> our more definable contributions to the process.  This is especially  
> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the  
> definition.  The definition does not in any way say that IG is  
> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
> civil society.  IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can  
> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle  
> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom),  
> etc.  And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG  
> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the  
> concern it has already been met.  One can read the WGIG report and  
> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the  
> related scholarly and policy literatures.  Finally, as has been  
> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective  
> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political  
> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi  
> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are  
> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public  
> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN).   
> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent  
> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is,  
> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context.

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

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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:01:40 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:31:40 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date Q 2 "remote
 participation" (Q6)
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110907121027o5a2055a6rf61b5f60dd0b2eab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <b1161f110907121027o5a2055a6rf61b5f60dd0b2eab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B1414.7060108@gmail.com>


Sylvia Caras wrote:
> Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and
> archiving?  Is adding those terms redundant?
>
> " ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and
> archiving, as a tool ..."
>
>   

Sylvia, thanks for this point. This section was eliminated from Q2 a 
version or two ago, as it is addressed in Q6, and no longer seemed 
relevant here. How about adding your phrase to Q 6, as follows in the 
first para of Q6:

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
processes?

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of 
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
but not limited to, remote participation, including transcription and 
archiving.

And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:

“In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular 
attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of 
society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, 
unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* 
*We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons 
with disabilities.”

we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with 
disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of 
the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting 
peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an 
electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 
governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
based economic and social development.

This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated 
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF 
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance 
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and 
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and 
for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the 
work done elsewhere.

Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.

Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using 
its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some 
regions and to help others to start.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 
in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these 
years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of 
multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This 
should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the 
annual IGF meeting.

The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund 
the IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the 
quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be 
considered in this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most 
renowned civil society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders 
who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are 
not seen at the IGF, and governments are not represented on a high 
enough level and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent 
all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be 
improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various 
categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may 
help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to 
the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and 
individual participants) would be several times that of the actual 
outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in 
the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible 
and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is 
already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to 
panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion 
of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of 
participation are compromised.

With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the 
IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by 
unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded 
non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. 
The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ 
honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, 
who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for 
participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of 
participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented 
categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented 
participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented 
regions if there is an individual need ).

Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to 
the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is 
especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from 
contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a 
business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to 
be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants 
unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large 
enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of 
participation.

Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past 
various such innovations have been considered - including speed 
dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always 
the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the 
reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be 
palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a 
whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the 
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of 
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.




Sylvia Caras wrote:
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> ...
>> 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.
>> ...
>>     
>
> Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and
> archiving?  Is adding those terms redundant?
>
> " ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and
> archiving, as a tool ..."
>
> Sylvia
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 06:52:25 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:22:25 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A5B11E9.9060709@gmail.com>

Bill and Parminder thanks for your comments.

Taking into account Bill Drake's suggestions, and Parminder's comments 
on Q2, I propose the following text in place of the previous text for Q2 
as a compromise.  Please let me know what you think:

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS 
process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and 
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in 
Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any 
follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. 
The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic 
activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s 
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as 
a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.

We suggest that a  process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a 
code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - 
Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a 
building block for such an effort.

A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet 
the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 
significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 
voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of 
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the 
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.



William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger,
>
> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer 
> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the 
> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies 
> generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will 
> leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands 
> the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has 
> advocated for the past seven years.  I oppose including such 
> language.  It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant 
> statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved 
> back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't 
> have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore.  
> However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from 
> Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8
>
> [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should 
> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement 
> of governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
> organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the 
> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote 
> and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in 
> Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any 
> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. 
> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic 
> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s 
> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added 
> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help 
> kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main 
> session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general 
> applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily 
> assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could 
> consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, 
> and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.]
>
> We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting 
> consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and 
> suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
> mandate.  Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE 
> initiative as a building block for such an effort.
>
> If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do 
> so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?"  In that context, it 
> might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet 
> governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend 
> that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should 
> be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how).
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives 
>> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 
>> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the 
>> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to 
>> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented 
>> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and 
>> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities 
>> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their 
>> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised 
>> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
>> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human 
>> Rights.
>>
>> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human 
>> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and 
>> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a 
>> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation 
>> of the IGF.
>>
>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to 
>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in 
>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of 
>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. 
>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, 
>> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality 
>> discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion 
>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each 
>> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should 
>> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:10:54 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:40:54 -0430
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>	 <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com>

Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this 
concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we could 
continue this discussion after the questionnaire is submitted, perhaps 
for comments to be submitted by the August deadline?

In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would give you 
more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you?

Regards,
Ginger

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Michael Gurstein
>
> A quick reply and a little more later.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com
>         <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>]
>         *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
>         *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Michael Gurstein
>         *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's
>         proposed paras
>
>         Hello Michael Gurstein,
>
>         On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein
>         <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>             "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF
>             Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation
>             substantially and significantly to further enhance the
>             quality of programs with greater diversity of
>             participation" sounds better?  
>
>              YES... 
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>             There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a)
>             The absence or
>             non-participation of some of the world's most renowned
>             Civil Society opinion
>             leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise
>             committed to
>             social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at
>             the IGF;
>             Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>
>             HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY
>             OPINION LEADERS"
>             (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE
>             INTERNAL
>             CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY
>             NEITHER WE NOR THE
>             SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE
>             "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
>             BE.
>
>             AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
>             FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>             SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE
>             LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>             SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE
>             LOOKING FOR LEADERS
>             OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
>             POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE
>             CATEGORIES IS
>             PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER
>             YOUR STATEMENT.
>
>             IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE
>             THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
>             NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT
>             THAT AND SIMILARLY
>             WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>
>             I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>
>
>         I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of
>         such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present
>         participants constitute a complete, representative, and
>         ultimate group ?  
>          
>         NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA
>         SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>
> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana 
> Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of 
> these names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know 
> or associated with.  Looks like you are reading between the lines of 
> what I write.
>
>          
>         HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER
>         MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK
>         WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND
>         THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND.
>
> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your 
> comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian 
> point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a participant from India, 
> I have faith in and respect for my country but I believe that in an 
> International context I am at least a little wider than a national.  I 
> have been inspired by teachers who taught me in my school days that 
> "patriotism is a prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths 
> implies that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global.
>
> (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have 
> written a little later)
>
> Thank you.
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
>
>  
>
>          
>         MBG
>          
>
>         Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>          
>
>
>               
>             M
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             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
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:18:59 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:48:59 -0430
Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
In-Reply-To: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC>
References: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A5B1823.8010204@gmail.com>

Bill, Garth, Michael and all....

Good to see some discussion. Thanks. While I do think it is valid to 
re-submit a text for consideration, right now we are on a very tight 
schedule, and I do not think we have time to resolve this discussion 
before our July 15 deadline..

I suggest that we continue the discussion on this point, but that we 
remove it from the questionnaire for now.

Is that acceptable?

Best, Ginger

Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think
> without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the
> reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is
> not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather
> suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other)
> circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either
> here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours.
>
> (I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community
> Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor
> throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual
> community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its
> own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!)
>
> Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language
> and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps
> not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at
> dog's life speed.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>   
>> Garth Graham wrote:
>>     
>>> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later
>>> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a  
>>> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing  
>>> wording.  I don't see that it is.
>>>  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was  
>>> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending  
>>> fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the  
>>> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to  
>>> include it would be under any other comments.
>>>       
>> Thanks Garth.
>> Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this
>> contains some wording that must be discussed.
>>     
>
> I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here.  This text  
> was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that  
> it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics  
> surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter.   
> Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've  
> gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we  
> were the principal and most consistent advocates.  Hence, if the  
> process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- 
> opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material.
>
> My previous response on this included below for reference.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence
>>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a  
>>> particular issue.
>>>       
>> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re:
>> this statement.  There were also expressions of interest in using  
>> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful.
>>     
>>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
>>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs,  
>>> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG  
>>> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather  
>>> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
>>> civil society, "in their respective roles,"  if roles and  
>>> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition  
>>> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared  
>>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and  
>>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>>>       
>> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was
>> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there  
>> and beyond in WSIS.  Its adoption helped put aside some very  
>> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments,  
>> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and  
>> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion  
>> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG.  It  
>> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of  
>> our more definable contributions to the process.  This is especially  
>> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the  
>> definition.  The definition does not in any way say that IG is  
>> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
>> civil society.  IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can  
>> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle  
>> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom),  
>> etc.  And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG  
>> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the  
>> concern it has already been met.  One can read the WGIG report and  
>> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the  
>> related scholarly and policy literatures.  Finally, as has been  
>> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective  
>> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political  
>> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi  
>> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are  
>> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public  
>> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN).   
>> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent  
>> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is,  
>> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context.
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:23:47 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:53:47 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date
In-Reply-To: <C6808951.3F14%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6808951.3F14%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com>

Ian, thanks so much for your comments.

I have tried to include your recommendations in the threads on the 
individual questions, and will send out another complete draft later 
today. I hope you will comment again.

Regards,
Ginger

Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Ginger, 
>
> My time is going to be even worse than I thought this week - like Parminder,
> several factors have fallen into a rare confluence. Not sure I will be able
> to participate further, but I do appreciate all your efforts and know from
> past experience how much energy is needed to try to get together a consensus
> statement here. 
>
> So a few comments below. I may not be able to follow discussions of each
> question, and will personally find it easier to keep commenting on a
> completed draft.
>
>
> On 12/07/09 10:41 PM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it
>> today, adding missing parts and working on text.
>>
>> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time.
>> Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so
>> please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get
>> consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement /
>> objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>
>> The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes
>> at the national, regionalŠ 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
>>
>>     
> Others have commented here. I also bear in mind Jeremy's comments. I believe
> we can say that broadly speaking the mandate has been fulfilled.
>
>   
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness
>> and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the
>> importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet
>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access
>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with
>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of
>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the
>> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It
>> allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the
>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>>
>> 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 think here we might be better off just saying we believe that in general
> IGF has embodied the WSIS principles . Not sure how rights and principles
> fits in here or whether such a long expose of this issue is appropriate here
>   
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
>> acted as a catalyst for change?
>>
>> Text from Shiva:
>>
>> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of
>> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity
>> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase
>> as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to
>> experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are
>> becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable'
>> equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>>     
>
> I think this is good, but the text below IMHO is not suitable. I don't think
> we should say direct impact has been minimal. I think we should say that in
> the absence of a larger scale evaluation it would be difficult to measure
> direct and indirect impact.
>   
>> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process
>> has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A
>> point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be
>> relevant:
>>
>> (from the meeting transcript)
>> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
>> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
>> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
>> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
>> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
>> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
>> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
>> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
>> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
>> idea
>> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
>> this or
>> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
>> comfort
>> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
>> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are
>> taken by government, by businesses in
>> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
>> reflect
>> the mood of the IGF.
>> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
>> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
>> report on
>> the mood of IGF. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>>
>> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the
>> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like
>> to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term
>> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official
>> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of
>> the IGF.
>>
>> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to
>> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the
>> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are
>> of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the
>> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally
>> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand
>> that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions.
>> All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries
>> of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should
>> be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics
>> are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such
>> topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as
>> appropriate.
>>
>> *Membership of the MAG*
>>
>> € The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required
>> balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so
>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present
>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One
>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
>> € In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities
>> of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the
>> Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is
>> associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly
>> established, and made open along with due justifications.
>> € Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder
>> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be
>> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among
>> all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary
>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
>> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical
>> standards should
>> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
>> should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
>> € Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate
>> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that
>> it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given
>> set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular
>> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially
>> in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope
>> for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This,
>> however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations
>> from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept
>> to the minimum.
>> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
>> interest groups.
>>
>> *Role and Structure of the MAG*
>>
>> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time
>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will
>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.
>> € One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the
>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out
>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the
>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its
>> decision making processes to make them more effective. These are
>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what
>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate.
>> € It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups
>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of
>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for
>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
>> € We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has
>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General.
>> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires
>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations'
>> etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the
>> IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN
>> Secretary General.
>> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should
>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant
>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline
>> plans for the year ahead. We
>> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would
>> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and
>> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum
>> beyond 2010.
>> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which
>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out
>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is
>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
>> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a
>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to
>> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express
>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat.
>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of
>> the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources
>> needed to perform its role effectively.
>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation
>> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF
>> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
>>
>> *Special Advisors and Chair*
>>
>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for
>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as
>> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for
>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should
>> be kept within a reasonable limit.
>> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature
>> of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN
>> Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy
>> chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues
>> for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the
>> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the
>> present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested
>> new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the
>> Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative
>> has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now
>> about the post-Hyderabad phase.
>> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present
>> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend
>> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through
>> difficult formative times
>>     
>
> No problem in general with the content above but it does need a substantial
> edit to be relevant to current question
>   
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should
>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
>>
>> There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF -
>> first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for
>> multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.
>>
>> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be
>> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF
>> is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other
>> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its
>> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>>
>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are
>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to
>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.
>>
>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet
>> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more
>> participative and democratic.
>>
>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last
>> few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be
>> assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its
>> functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To
>> this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets
>> involved in the IGF's management.
>>     
>
> I agree with this section
>   
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?
>>     
>
> There seem to be three suggestions below - remote participation, regional
> forums, and secretariat funding. I agree with inclusion of all, but also
> endorse Parminder's comments on emphasis on regional forums.
>
> I aLSO believe we should not be too prescriptive as regards funding. Yes we
> need to mention it and give examples and call for more. Beyond that it might
> be difficult to get agreement
>   
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
>> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more
>> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through,
>> but not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
>> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with
>> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an
>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
>> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
>> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
>> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
>> based economic and social development.
>>
>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
>> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in
>> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.
>> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the
>> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated
>> face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF
>> should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
>> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and
>> for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the
>> work done elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
>> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
>> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
>> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
>> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
>> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
>> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
>> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
>> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
>> competitive and convenient.
>>
>> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]
>>
>> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term
>> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and
>> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using
>> its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some
>> regions and to help others to start.
>>
>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the
>> support of IGF ­ will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in
>> a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.
>>
>> [Text to be re-written by Shiva]
>> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to
>> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a
>> Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for
>> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend
>> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers,
>> team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for
>> distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess
>> of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended
>> hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel
>> speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to
>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 -
>> $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded
>> NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would
>> enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from
>> Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those
>> participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have
>> difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
>>
>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more
>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past
>> various such innovations have been considered - including speed
>> dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always
>> the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the
>> reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be
>> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a
>> whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the
>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of
>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
>>
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>     
>
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Jul 13 07:31:24 2009
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:31:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
 <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612>


Roland Perry wrote

Message du 11/07/09 11:23
> De : "Roland Perry" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
> 
> 
> In message <4A57E366.2B1B8A60 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:57:10 on Fri, 10 Jul 
> 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes
> 
> >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But
> >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF
> >> issue though).
> >
> > I disagree. The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN,
> >is directly related to these sorts of issues.
> 
> The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the 
> Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their 
> domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper.
> 
> >>Are you really wanting customers to boycott suppliers who use 
> >>websites hosted with "weaker" DNS?
> >
> >Yes, our members do exactly so.
> 
> Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of 
> entities they are?
> 
> >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between
> >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant
> >> whose content I want to access.
> >
> > DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter.
> 
> Physical configuration is the main issue here.
> 
> >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was
> >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".
> >
> >Registrants are users too.
> 
> But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN 
> affects the *others*, who are "average users".
> 
> >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm. Such harm
> >impacts everyone.
> 
> I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the 
> exams). Is that harming everyone?
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/a611b08f/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:34:24 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:04:24 -0430
Subject: [governance] Q4 MAG - Request for a MAG member volunteer to update
 Q4
Message-ID: <4A5B1BC0.8060707@gmail.com>

As Ian pointed out, the text in Q4 is just copy/pasted from IGC's 
previous statement. Could one of our MAG members please update this 
section? Perhaps we should also add something about the Open 
Consultations, which have allowed input from all groups...

I would greatly appreciate someone answering to confirm they will do this.

Thanks, Ginger


4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the 
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would like 
to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term 
"multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official 
purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of 
the IGF.

MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to 
making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the 
new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are 
of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the 
other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally 
discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand 
that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. 
All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries 
of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should 
be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics 
are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such 
topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as 
appropriate.

*Membership of the MAG*

• The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required 
balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so 
large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present 
circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One 
third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
• In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities 
of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the 
Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is 
associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly 
established, and made open along with due justifications.
• Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 
advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among 
all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary 
to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
• We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet 
administration and the development of Internet-related technical 
standards should
continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation 
should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
• Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate 
processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that 
it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given 
set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular 
stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially 
in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope 
for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, 
however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations 
from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept 
to the minimum.
• When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure 
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special 
interest groups.

*Role and Structure of the MAG*

With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time 
to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will 
be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.
• One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the 
annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out 
this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the 
effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its 
decision making processes to make them more effective. These are 
especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what 
it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate.
• It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups 
(WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of 
workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for 
managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
• We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has 
any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. 
For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 
'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' 
etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the 
IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN 
Secretary General.
• MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 
mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 
parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline 
plans for the year ahead. We
suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would 
also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and 
prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum 
beyond 2010.
• IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which 
should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out 
for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is 
also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a 
UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express 
our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. 
While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of 
the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources 
needed to perform its role effectively.
In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation 
of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF 
annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.

*Special Advisors and Chair*

The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for 
their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as 
mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for 
the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should 
be kept within a reasonable limit.
We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature 
of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN 
Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy 
chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues 
for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the 
division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the 
present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested 
new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the 
Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative 
has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now 
about the post-Hyderabad phase.
And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present 
Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend 
the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through 
difficult formative times

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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:35:22 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:05:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com>
References: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>
	 <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907130435w3cc7c4dck5012343c1d3c9e40@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger

You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC
statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3?

There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the
misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire
statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC?

Thanks.



On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this concept
> and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we could continue
> this discussion after the questionnaire is submitted, perhaps for comments
> to be submitted by the August deadline?
>
> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would give you
> more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you?
>
> Regards,
> Ginger
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael Gurstein
>>
>> A quick reply and a little more later.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi,
>>
>>        -----Original Message-----
>>        *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>]
>>        *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
>>        *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>        <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Michael Gurstein
>>        *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's
>>        proposed paras
>>
>>        Hello Michael Gurstein,
>>
>>        On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein
>>        <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>            "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF
>>            Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation
>>            substantially and significantly to further enhance the
>>            quality of programs with greater diversity of
>>            participation" sounds better?
>>             YES...
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>            There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a)
>>            The absence or
>>            non-participation of some of the world's most renowned
>>            Civil Society opinion
>>            leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise
>>            committed to
>>            social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at
>>            the IGF;
>>            Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>>
>>            HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY
>>            OPINION LEADERS"
>>            (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE
>>            INTERNAL
>>            CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY
>>            NEITHER WE NOR THE
>>            SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE
>>            "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
>>            BE.
>>
>>            AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
>>            FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>>            SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE
>>            LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>>            SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE
>>            LOOKING FOR LEADERS
>>            OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
>>            POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE
>>            CATEGORIES IS
>>            PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER
>>            YOUR STATEMENT.
>>
>>            IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE
>>            THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
>>            NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT
>>            THAT AND SIMILARLY
>>            WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>>
>>            I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>>
>>
>>        I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of
>>        such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present
>>        participants constitute a complete, representative, and
>>        ultimate group ?                  NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING
>> WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA
>>        SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>>
>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana Shiva
>> is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of these
>> names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know or
>> associated with.  Looks like you are reading between the lines of what I
>> write.
>>
>>                HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE
>> RATHER
>>        MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK
>>        WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND
>>        THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND.
>>
>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your comment.
>> Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian point of view? I am
>> not. I am born in India, a participant from India, I have faith in and
>> respect for my country but I believe that in an International context I am
>> at least a little wider than a national.  I have been inspired by teachers
>> who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a prejudice" which is
>> profound thinking which in depths implies that one must be beyond being
>> patriotic and be rather global.
>>
>> (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have
>> written a little later)
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
>>
>>
>>                MBG
>>
>>        Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>>
>>                          M
>>
>>            ____________________________________________________________
>>            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
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/6bc667a5/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 07:44:21 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:14:21 -0430
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907130435w3cc7c4dck5012343c1d3c9e40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>	 <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>	 <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <fecfce260907130435w3cc7c4dck5012343c1d3c9e40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com>

Hi Shiva,

I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as 
well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on 
the funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see 
if you can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time 
everyone is happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you 
review the thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete 
questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think?

Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok?

Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss.

Best,
Ginger

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ginger
>
> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC 
> statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3?
>
> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the 
> misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the 
> entire statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this
>     concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we
>     could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is
>     submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August
>     deadline?
>
>     In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would
>     give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you?
>
>     Regards,
>     Ginger
>
>     Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>         Hello Michael Gurstein
>
>         A quick reply and a little more later.
>
>         On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein
>         <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Hi,
>
>                -----Original Message-----
>                *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>         [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>
>                <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>]
>                *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
>                *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>                <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>; Michael Gurstein
>                *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's
>                proposed paras
>
>                Hello Michael Gurstein,
>
>                On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein
>                <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>                    "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF
>                    Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation
>                    substantially and significantly to further enhance the
>                    quality of programs with greater diversity of
>                    participation" sounds better?  
>                     YES...
>         Thanks.
>
>
>
>                    There are two aspects to be considered in this
>         regard: a)
>                    The absence or
>                    non-participation of some of the world's most renowned
>                    Civil Society opinion
>                    leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are
>         otherwise
>                    committed to
>                    social and other governance issues off IGF are not
>         seen at
>                    the IGF;
>                    Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>
>                    HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL
>         SOCIETY
>                    OPINION LEADERS"
>                    (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND
>         PROBABLY MORE
>                    INTERNAL
>                    CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY
>                    NEITHER WE NOR THE
>                    SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE
>                    "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
>                    BE.
>
>                    AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
>                    FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>                    SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR
>         ARE WE
>                    LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>                    SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR
>         ARE WE
>                    LOOKING FOR LEADERS
>                    OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO
>         HAVE A
>                    POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE
>                    CATEGORIES IS
>                    PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY
>         UNDER
>                    YOUR STATEMENT.
>
>                    IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE
>                    THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
>                    NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO
>         ABOUT
>                    THAT AND SIMILARLY
>                    WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>
>                    I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>
>
>                I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative
>         interpretation of
>                such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the
>         present
>                participants constitute a complete, representative, and
>                ultimate group ?                  NO, BUT I'M HAVING
>         TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA
>                SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>
>         I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein;
>         Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I
>         wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to
>         bring in anyone whom I know or associated with.  Looks like
>         you are reading between the lines of what I write.
>
>                        HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO
>         ME TO BE RATHER
>                MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK
>                WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT
>         THEM AND
>                THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND.
>
>         Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in
>         your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing
>         the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a
>         participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my
>         country but I believe that in an International context I am at
>         least a little wider than a national.  I have been inspired by
>         teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a
>         prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies
>         that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global.
>
>         (Will come back this point and write more in response to what
>         you have written a little later)
>
>         Thank you.
>         Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
>
>          
>                        MBG
>                
>                Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>                
>
>                                  M
>
>                  
>          ____________________________________________________________
>                    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>                        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>                    <mailto: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>
>                    <mailto: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
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jul 13 07:56:48 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:56:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <A59623CD-0466-46BC-B56F-712D32D54FC0@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder

On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote:

> William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ginger,
>>
>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer  
>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the  
>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies  
>> generally.
> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked '  
> WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further  
> clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS  
> principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles)  
> principles. To quote the paper
> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the  
> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the  
> Information Society"

That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not  
surprising since that's the first official document in which the  
principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the  
regional declarations etc).  That doesn't mean that the WSIS  
principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering  
e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc).  Indeed, the second bit you  
quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the  
Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point.  The entire Geneva DOP is not  
contained in the TA.  The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are  
enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs.
>
>
> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined  
> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in  
> para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral,  
> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder -   that you mention.

I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for  
years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the  
consultations etc would demonstrate.  But I would agree with you that  
people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending  
on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion.   As  
I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book),

Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of  
governance processes, namely that, they “should be multilateral,  
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,  
the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”  
The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s statement that  
Internet governance, “should involve all stakeholders and relevant  
intergovernmental and international organizations.” Going further,  
Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues “should be  
addressed in a coordinated manner.” While this point is raised as a  
preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working  
Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for  
coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS  
process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as  
well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be  
called the procedural component of what came to be known as the “WSIS  
Principles on Internet governance.” In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set  
out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance “should  
ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for  
all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking  
into account multilingualism.”

I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both  
procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly  
to the notion that IG should promote development.  I'd guess you'd  
agree with that.  But this is very different from saying that the rest  
of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS  
principles on IG.

> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position  
> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which  
> includes the four principles that you mention.

The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret  
international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF  
discussions.  It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying  
to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to  
satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts  
etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with  
the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc.  So if  
some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include  
every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information  
society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect  
this is pretty far from dispositive.  Utterances made in program  
committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative.

> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that  
> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF  
> - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 'process- 
> oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society  want to  
> exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' approach that  
> was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents.

Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a  
rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of  
conceptual precision.  The text I was responding to was different in  
scope.

So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles  
should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the  
prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can  
readily agree.  If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is  
actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said so  
in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than subjecting  
the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-)

Cheers,

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/9c6f8cd0/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  Mon Jul 13 08:25:04 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:55:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
In-Reply-To: <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com>
References: <fecfce260907121518t4d322f2cufb4b48c04cfce7a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC>
	 <fecfce260907122127s299529c9oae25bdd65bfaa370@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com>
	 <fecfce260907130435w3cc7c4dck5012343c1d3c9e40@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260907130525n71bcb882tded9a7f24073c2bf@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ginger

Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the complete
questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but don't really have a
lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a few hours for a short trip,
will find some time to work tomorrow as well, but not tonight.

Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an independent
proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but preferred not to.

Shiva.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Shiva,
>
> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as
> well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on the
> funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see if you
> can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is
> happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the thread
> on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete questionnaire draft, and tell
> us what you think?
>
> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok?
>
> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss.
>
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> Hello Ginger
>>
>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC
>> statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3?
>>
>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the
>> misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire
>> statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com <mailto:
>> gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this
>>    concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we
>>    could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is
>>    submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August
>>    deadline?
>>
>>    In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would
>>    give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you?
>>
>>    Regards,
>>    Ginger
>>
>>    Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>
>>        Hello Michael Gurstein
>>
>>        A quick reply and a little more later.
>>
>>        On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein
>>        <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>>        <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>           Hi,
>>
>>               -----Original Message-----
>>               *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>        [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>
>>               <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>]
>>               *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
>>               *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>        <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>               <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>        <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>; Michael Gurstein
>>               *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's
>>               proposed paras
>>
>>               Hello Michael Gurstein,
>>
>>               On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein
>>               <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>>        <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                   "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF
>>                   Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation
>>                   substantially and significantly to further enhance the
>>                   quality of programs with greater diversity of
>>                   participation" sounds better?
>>  YES...
>>        Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>                   There are two aspects to be considered in this
>>        regard: a)
>>                   The absence or
>>                   non-participation of some of the world's most renowned
>>                   Civil Society opinion
>>                   leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are
>>        otherwise
>>                   committed to
>>                   social and other governance issues off IGF are not
>>        seen at
>>                   the IGF;
>>                   Governments are not represented on a level high enough
>>
>>                   HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL
>>        SOCIETY
>>                   OPINION LEADERS"
>>                   (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND
>>        PROBABLY MORE
>>                   INTERNAL
>>                   CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY
>>                   NEITHER WE NOR THE
>>                   SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE
>>                   "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
>>                   BE.
>>
>>                   AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
>>                   FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>>                   SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR
>>        ARE WE
>>                   LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>>                   SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR
>>        ARE WE
>>                   LOOKING FOR LEADERS
>>                   OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO
>>        HAVE A
>>                   POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE
>>                   CATEGORIES IS
>>                   PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY
>>        UNDER
>>                   YOUR STATEMENT.
>>
>>                   IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE
>>                   THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
>>                   NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO
>>        ABOUT
>>                   THAT AND SIMILARLY
>>                   WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>>
>>                   I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>>
>>
>>               I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative
>>        interpretation of
>>               such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the
>>        present
>>               participants constitute a complete, representative, and
>>               ultimate group ?                  NO, BUT I'M HAVING
>>        TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA
>>               SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>>
>>        I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein;
>>        Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I
>>        wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to
>>        bring in anyone whom I know or associated with.  Looks like
>>        you are reading between the lines of what I write.
>>
>>                       HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO
>>        ME TO BE RATHER
>>               MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK
>>               WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT
>>        THEM AND
>>               THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND.
>>
>>        Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in
>>        your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing
>>        the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a
>>        participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my
>>        country but I believe that in an International context I am at
>>        least a little wider than a national.  I have been inspired by
>>        teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a
>>        prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies
>>        that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global.
>>
>>        (Will come back this point and write more in response to what
>>        you have written a little later)
>>
>>        Thank you.
>>        Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
>>
>>                               MBG
>>                             Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>>                                 M
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>                   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>                       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>        <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>                   <mailto: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>
>>                   <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/b6aff3f1/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  Mon Jul 13 08:33:49 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:33:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet
In-Reply-To: <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612>
References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org>
 <p06200773c679740879ce@[10.0.1.3]> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com>
 <Z1gsIatLCHVKFA77@perry.co.uk> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com>
 <qccwCZ35RIVKFAur@perry.co.uk> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com>
 <lQqzhQBh8JVKFAeF@perry.co.uk> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com>
 <LoL4$gAlOxVKFAZ0@perry.co.uk> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com>
 <oR7gxA0plFWKFAn4@perry.co.uk>
 <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612>
Message-ID: <5rqEvIBtmyWKFA2q@perry.co.uk>

In message <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www at wwinf2612>, at 
13:31:24 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> 
writes
><The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the
><Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss 
>their
><domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper.
>
>Didn't you notice that the "copper" age is passed since two decades, 
>even in the undersea cables

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 08:39:13 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:09:13 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260907121445o73ba6a56o9e102c5ae5d83dd8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com>	 <fecfce260907121328o6ec4b72oeafa6848a32de12f@mail.gmail.com>	 <fecfce260907121352i37661bf5nff486eb7844c832b@mail.gmail.com> <fecfce260907121445o73ba6a56o9e102c5ae5d83dd8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B2AF1.7050705@gmail.com>

I have tightened and shortened Shiva's proposal for Q3, also taking into 
account Ian's and other comments. Please comment.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 
acted as a catalyst for change?

The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of 
discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed 
that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during 
WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the 
request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that 
include business, government, academia and civil society working 
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.

The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is 
posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on 
participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or 
organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in 
turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. 
One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in 
IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance?, "Has your 
involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted 
in your work? and "Has your participation in the  multi-stakeholder 
process changed or affected your perspective on any particular 
governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF.

The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other 
international policy process and governments perceive civil society 
participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase 
as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an 
opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of 
the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. 
This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF 
process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory 
governance process and this will have other widespread impact.

[The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat 
introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text 
transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research 
resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ 
stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.] [Move this section to 
No. 7? ]

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello All,
>
>     The following is a more complete response to Q3:
>
>     On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>     <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello All,
>
>
> ( statement further fine-tuned. Finer changes are inlaid into the 
> following text)
>
>
>
>         The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the
>         level of discussions between stakeholders since the WSIS
>         process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration
>         during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it could also be
>         said that there is far less confrontation. It could also be
>         said that as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is
>         increasing constructive collaboration. ( For instance, In the
>         2009 workshop proposals, due to the request by the IGF
>         Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that include
>         business, government, academia and civil society working
>         together. - should we say this ?)
>
>      
>
>         The impact of the IGF could be seen on a deeper level rather
>         than superficially. If the question is posed differently to
>         examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen
>         that the participants as individuals or organizations, the
>         participants have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF
>         which in turn gets shared and influences the respective
>         stakeholder groups and others.Variant questions such as "Has
>         your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
>         governance? , "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact
>         with other peers who have assisted in your work? and "Has your
>         participation in the  multi-stakeholder process changed or
>         affected your perspective on any particular governance
>         issues?" etc.may elicit a positive response. 
>
>      
>
>         Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its
>         direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is
>         changing the way Government's perceive Civil Society
>         participation in the policy making process. During the
>         preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs,
>         Governments had an opportunity to experience the
>         mutli-stakholder participatory process and they are becoming
>         comfortable with the idea and process of consultation. This
>         'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF
>         process promotes faith in the functionality of the
>         participatory governance process and could inspire National
>         Governments to emulate the participatory process)
>
>
>         As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not
>         have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. This
>         is a "design" aspect of the IGF which may be largely
>         preserved. At the same time it is observed that due to this
>         status of the IGF, the policy making process of National
>         Governments and Regional Governments have not sufficiently
>         paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings
>         together participants with different expertise from various
>         stakeholder groups from various geographic regions around the
>         world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but these
>         valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been
>         systematically channeled to contribute to the actual policy
>         making process. IGF could devise a system by which
>         Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the
>         positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during
>         the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a
>         "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF, such
>         Session/Topic Reports could be released under different topic
>         headings and could become Reference Documents to contribute to
>         the National / Regional policy making process.
>
>         Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources
>         from the IGF Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics
>         while framing proposals for a new policy / change of an
>         existing policy related to Internet. The proposed Reference
>         documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom
>         of Expression to outline the overall IGF position with
>         sub-sections on stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics
>         such as a topic on Cloud Computing or Social Networking. Such
>         Documents would enable the National / Regional Policy making
>         process to comprehensively and readily understand the "mood"
>         of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/
>         directive/ guideline is being considered. At present decisions
>         are taken by governments and by business corporations largely
>         in isolation of the IGF deliberations, without  taking into
>         consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the
>         solutions proposed by the IGF.
>
>         The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF
>         Secretariat considers this as an action item and introduce a
>         mechanism to thoroughly record as audio-visuals collated with
>         text transcripts and presentations to be archives as source
>         records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable, open
>         forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the
>         Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing
>         skills to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on
>         issues/sessions. The IGF Secretariat may also proactively
>         reach out to Governments to urge them to adopt it as a
>         convention to call for IGF Position papers and related
>         documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process.
>
>         Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
>         On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque
>         <gpaque at gmail.com <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Shiva is actively working on Q3.
>
>             I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in
>             the level of discussion between stakeholders since the
>             WSIS process in the impact. I think there is much more
>             collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and far less
>             confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in
>             particular, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to
>             merge proposals, there are panels that include business,
>             government, academia and civil society working together.
>
>             We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire
>             for ideas as well:
>
>             *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or
>             indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder
>             group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst
>             for change?*
>             You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover
>             impact, and a lot of this would be at a personal level,
>             which is not directly covered by the way that question is
>             posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt,
>             eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups.
>             But to get meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to
>             ask a few questions along the lines of “has you
>             involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
>             governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful
>             contact with other peers that has assisted your work” ,
>             “has multistakeholder involvement changed or affected your
>             perspective on any particular governance issues” etc.
>             These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller
>             understanding of what the impact might have been.
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 06:52:25 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:22:25 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A5B11E9.9060709@gmail.com>

Bill and Parminder thanks for your comments.

Taking into account Bill Drake's suggestions, and Parminder's comments 
on Q2, I propose the following text in place of the previous text for Q2 
as a compromise.  Please let me know what you think:

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS 
process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and 
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in 
Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any 
follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. 
The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic 
activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s 
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as 
a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.

We suggest that a  process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a 
code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - 
Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a 
building block for such an effort.

A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet 
the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 
significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 
voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of 
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the 
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.



William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger,
>
> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer 
> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the 
> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies 
> generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will 
> leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands 
> the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has 
> advocated for the past seven years.  I oppose including such 
> language.  It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant 
> statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved 
> back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't 
> have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore.  
> However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from 
> Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8
>
> [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should 
> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement 
> of governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
> organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the 
> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote 
> and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in 
> Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any 
> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. 
> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic 
> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s 
> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added 
> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help 
> kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main 
> session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general 
> applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily 
> assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could 
> consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, 
> and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.]
>
> We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting 
> consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and 
> suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
> mandate.  Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE 
> initiative as a building block for such an effort.
>
> If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do 
> so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?"  In that context, it 
> might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet 
> governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend 
> that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should 
> be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how).
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives 
>> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 
>> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the 
>> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to 
>> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented 
>> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and 
>> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities 
>> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their 
>> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised 
>> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
>> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human 
>> Rights.
>>
>> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human 
>> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and 
>> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a 
>> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation 
>> of the IGF.
>>
>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to 
>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in 
>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of 
>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. 
>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, 
>> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality 
>> discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion 
>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each 
>> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should 
>> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 09:02:07 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:32:07 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com>

I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
development of the Internet.

There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 
So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The 
participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even 
the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking 
place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this 
process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that 
discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, 
particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not 
been adequately addressed.

The Tunis agenda also 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, including 
the IGF Remote Hubs. 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 again 
offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?
>
> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", 
> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than 
> "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 13 09:12:08 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:42:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <A59623CD-0466-46BC-B56F-712D32D54FC0@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> <A59623CD-0466-46BC-B56F-712D32D54FC0@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net>

Bill

Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles  have considerably 
changed subsequent to my email from the just 'multi-lateral, 
transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to include substantive 
aspects of '"should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, 
facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of 
the Internet, taking into account multilingualism." I see it as a very 
very significant progress from my point of view, and would request all 
subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have asked me what i 
meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you  (and  IGC statements)  have 
till  now only spoken of the  process related principles and not these  
substantive principles which are obviously very important. Thats 
self-selection :).

Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that with 
regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in 
relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of 
negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in 
detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate to 
apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of prefacing 
such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as others from civil 
society did during the last MAG meeting, will push for a rights-based 
approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles taking from the relevant 
DoP text on rights.

Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy here, 
and am spending time on this because I consider it an important 
discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text to 
the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful.

parminder


William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Ginger, 
>>>
>>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer 
>>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the 
>>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies 
>>> generally.
>> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' WSIS 
>> principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further clearer the 
>> current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS principles include DoP 
>> (Geneva declaration of principles) principles. To quote the paper
>>
>> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the 
>> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the 
>> Information Society"
>>
>
> That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not 
> surprising since that's the first official document in which the 
> principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the 
> regional declarations etc).  That doesn't mean that the WSIS 
> principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering 
> e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc).  Indeed, the second bit you 
> quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the 
> Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point.  The entire Geneva DOP is not 
> contained in the TA.  The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are 
> enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs.
>>
>>
>> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined 
>> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in para 
>> 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, transparent, 
>> democratic and multistakeholder -   that you mention.
>
> I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for 
> years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the 
> consultations etc would demonstrate.  But I would agree with you that 
> people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending 
> on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion.   As 
> I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book),
>
> Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of 
> governance processes, namely that, they "should be multilateral, 
> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, 
> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." 
> The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49's statement that 
> Internet governance, "should involve all stakeholders and relevant 
> intergovernmental and international organizations." Going further, 
> Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues "should be 
> addressed in a coordinated manner." While this point is raised as a 
> preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working 
> Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for 
> coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS 
> process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as 
> well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be 
> called the procedural component of what came to be known as the "WSIS 
> Principles on Internet governance." In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set 
> out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance "should 
> ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for 
> all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking 
> into account multilingualism."
>
> I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both 
> procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly 
> to the notion that IG should promote development.  I'd guess you'd 
> agree with that.  But this is very different from saying that the rest 
> of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS 
> principles on IG.
>
>> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position 
>> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which includes 
>> the four principles that you mention.
>
> The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret 
> international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF 
> discussions.  It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying 
> to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to 
> satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts 
> etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with 
> the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc.  So if 
> some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include 
> every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information 
> society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect 
> this is pretty far from dispositive.  Utterances made in program 
> committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative.
>
>> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that 
>> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF 
>> - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 
>> 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society  
>> want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' 
>> approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents.
>
> Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a 
> rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of 
> conceptual precision.  The text I was responding to was different in 
> scope.
>
> So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles 
> should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the 
> prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can 
> readily agree.  If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is 
> actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said so 
> in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than subjecting 
> the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/02ed0029/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 Jul 13 09:18:58 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:48:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org> <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net>

Ginger,

You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may 
want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today)

As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence

'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.'

can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all talk' 
is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited knowledge 
of the language.

also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing IGF's 
mandate , other than 72 (a) as well.

parminder

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns:
>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
> the Tunis Agenda?
>
> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order 
> to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
> development of the Internet.
>
> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 
> So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The 
> participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even 
> the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking 
> place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this 
> process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that 
> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all 
> actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which 
> have not been adequately addressed.
>
> The Tunis agenda also 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, 
> including the IGF Remote Hubs. 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 again 
> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?
>>
>> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", 
>> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more 
>> than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090713/0ea8c4a5/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 gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 09:28:14 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:58:14 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <DB5FB17F-494F-4AA2-8FF7-AD2CEF81AAEC@ciroap.org> <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A5B366E.4090205@gmail.com>

Sorry, Parminder, you are right. I mixed my drafts. I will check and 
re-send with your notes incorporated, ok? I really appreciate your help, 
discussion and patience.

Thanks, Ginger

Parminder wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may 
> want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today)
>
> As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence
>
> 'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.'
>
> can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all 
> talk' is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited 
> knowledge of the language.
>
> also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing 
> IGF's mandate , other than 72 (a) as well.
>
> parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns:
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>>
>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss 
>> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance 
>> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, 
>> stability and development of the Internet.
>>
>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take 
>> place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. 
>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, 
>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is 
>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that 
>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so 
>> that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all 
>> actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, 
>> which have not been adequately addressed.
>>
>> The Tunis agenda also 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, 
>> including the IGF Remote Hubs. 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 again 
>> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?
>>>
>>> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", 
>>> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more 
>>> than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 09:30:31 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:00:31 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review
In-Reply-To: <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net>
References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> <A59623CD-0466-46BC-B56F-712D32D54FC0@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A5B36F7.2030103@gmail.com>

Bill, Parminder, everyone...

I agree with Parminder--Bill, I do not think you should underestimate 
the importance of the topics and the value of these discussions for the 
rest of us, even if we do not intervene.

Best,
Ginger

Parminder wrote:
> Bill
>
> Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably 
> changed subsequent to my email from the just 'multi-lateral, 
> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to include substantive 
> aspects of '“should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, 
> facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning 
> of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.” I see it as a 
> very very significant progress from my point of view, and would 
> request all subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have 
> asked me what i meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC 
> statements) have till now only spoken of the process related 
> principles and not these substantive principles which are obviously 
> very important. Thats self-selection :).
>
> Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that 
> with regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in 
> relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of 
> negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in 
> detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate 
> to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of 
> prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as 
> others from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, will push 
> for a rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles 
> taking from the relevant DoP text on rights.
>
> Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy 
> here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important 
> discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text 
> to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful.
>
> parminder
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Parminder
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>> Hi Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer 
>>>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the 
>>>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies 
>>>> generally.
>>> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' 
>>> WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further 
>>> clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS 
>>> principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles) 
>>> principles. To quote the paper
>>>
>>> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the 
>>> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the 
>>> Information Society"
>>>
>>
>> That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not 
>> surprising since that's the first official document in which the 
>> principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in 
>> the regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS 
>> principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering 
>> e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the second bit you 
>> quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the 
>> Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point. The entire Geneva DOP is not 
>> contained in the TA. The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are 
>> enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs.
>>>
>