From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 30 19:03:26 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Bad happens when good does nothing
Message-ID: <949538.48172.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>



There are some people on this list that work tirelessly for the good of "their" translate all  people.  They have courage, empathy and rightful energy.  I very well may be unworthy to loosen their sandals so as to clean their feet, from their journies & battles.
 
Here is an (anonymous for this post) debate between me and just such a man. He is arguing protectionism in its purist form -- which is a good thing if you can find it. But more he is arguing empowerment through the knowledge and access that the internet can provide in developing regions.  I disagree in part. But I appreciate and admire the notions that if we let regions develop in their own way at their own cultural speed we maintain a higher level of human dignity which essentially comes from preservation of heritage.
 
Rock on Africa!



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Eric
Dierker<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> And this is good why??

It's a farily well understood concept that if the Internet will be
useful for folk in remote/underserved locations (such as African
villages) then content that is useful for them needs to be available
to them, especially in their own language(s).

>
> Is it to keep information flow in the hands of the status quo power
> structure?

the reverse actually.

>Why would knowledge be geographic?

knowledge, applications, services are only useful to folk if they
understand them in their own language and the economic benefit is
greater than the cost of accessing them.

Facebook in English is not going to be useful to someone who only
speaks Teso and needs to know (for example) commodity prices in
his/her area.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090630/27947cf6/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 Jun 30 19:34:31 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:04:31 -0430
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
Message-ID: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>

According to: 
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet

"BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic 
and international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that 
would have required personal computers sold in the country to have 
Internet-filtering software."

Does anyone have more news on this?


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Jun 30 19:42:51 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:42:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906301642s5bf306f5p77e2d5f054a23039@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> According to:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet
>
> "BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and
> international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have
> required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering
> software."
>
> Does anyone have more news on this?


Yes I do.  This is not a rare reversal.  This is precedent setting.

But I have no doubt the Chinese have an alternate covert plan in the works.

cheers
joe baptista


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



-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090630/72a4fcc7/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 Jun 30 20:11:16 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
Message-ID: <429283.75807.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

This is the new big brother. "Regimes" are slowly but surely realizing that blocking access to information is not working.  But now they know it is better to see who is accessing that information -- kind of like our cookies, phishing and mining, only I somehow doubt theirs will be used to generate leads and make sales.
There was news out of Hanoi today, on a new restriction on hooking up on mobile "throwaway devices".  See Hanoi has been doing this data useage collection all along so the kids were just getting smart and using untraceable accounts via mobile phones.  It is fun like the drug trade of the early 90s, make one substance illegal, then the chemies would just alter one element and make a different drug.  China cannot keep up with the youth.

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org> wrote:


From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] China backs down on filter?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 11:42 PM





On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

According to: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet

"BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering software."

Does anyone have more news on this?

Yes I do.  This is not a rare reversal.  This is precedent setting.

But I have no doubt the Chinese have an alternate covert plan in the works.

cheers
joe baptista
 




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

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



-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com

-----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/20090630/9943a900/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  Tue Jun 30 23:34:33 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:34:33 +0500
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906302034s6fa10774x9b7134b85167f59e@mail.gmail.com>

Well its far from openness. Just to help you all understand that what
really happens there:
http://chinayouren.com/eng/2009/01/chinese-internet-censorship-explained/

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Ginger Paque<gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet
>
> "BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and
> international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have
> required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering
> software."
>
> Does anyone have more news on this?
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 23:36:58 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:36:58 +0500
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com>

For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Jun  1 00:22:03 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1243829957.73221.296@lists.cpsr.org>

Very nice Ian,

A little tweek here & there;

-
Under Response to Question 6: Edit

>Therefore, all of us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

Change to:
In this respect,  all of us believe the JPA should be end as soon as these are
satisfide.

-

>On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
necessary changes.

Change to:
On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does make necessary
changes via oversite provided under a JPA extention agreement.
--

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 00:41:49 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:41:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>

nice one Ian,
My suggested changes below:


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

<snip>


>
> Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.
> stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and
> representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector
> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so,
> have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's
>  existing processes and  structures?)
>
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
> embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to
> replace "private sector management" with the

words "multistakeholder management"

multistakeholder principle
> which has evolved from

<insert>
the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the

the World Summit on the Information Society and the
> Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
> governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
> your Q7 below.
>
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>  Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as
> to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still
> the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate
> international  participation in the coordination and management of the DNS,
> bearing in mind  the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS?
> If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN
> sufficient to enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If
> not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure
> the stability and  security of the Internet DNS?)
>
> IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This
> poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the
> longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this
> point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the
> establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the
> appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a
> global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry
> (domain name registration) and over critical resources

add "global allocation of" to:

(IP addresses,

strike "root servers and addresses" here, as we already mentioned IP
addresses and ICANN doesn't really have regulatory authority over root
servers.


root
> servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and
> accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in
> mind.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  1 01:26:15 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:56:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>

Ian

Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I 
think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together. 
However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I 
raised in my email of Friday the 29th.

In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate - 
and how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides 
are not just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two 
sides are about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system 
or whether is structurally requires an external oversight/ 
accountability mechanism. This is the real division.

As I said in my quoted email

"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other 
than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be 
accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due 
internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes 
of the same."

I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I 
think also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to 
be a clear outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  
a caucus statement that does not take this into account.

In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an 
independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights 
issues with industry led governance systems which is what US government 
sees as independent ICANN)

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
> Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). 
> As time is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised 
> wording wherever possible.
>
> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific 
> oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We 
> have to realise we have different opinions here and see how we can 
> move forward to say something useful.
>
> We have a few days for comments -- mid week we will need to present 
> the final draft for a consensus call.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved 
> the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the 
> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our 
> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and 
> for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet 
> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide 
> spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be 
> found at www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society". We also recognise the need for high levels of 
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet 
> stability and security.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>  
> *Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles 
> (i.e. stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and 
> representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private 
> sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate 
> principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively 
> integrated into ICANN's  existing processes and  structures?)*
>
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see 
> them embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would 
> propose to replace "private sector management" with the 
> multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on 
> the Information Society and the Internet  Governance Forum process 
> which the US Government has supported, and which is  an important 
> facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements. We 
> also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.
>  
> *Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to 
> transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously 
> performed by the U.S.  Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, 
> to the private sector so as to  enable industry leadership and 
> bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to 
> increase competition and facilitate international  participation in 
> the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind  the need 
> to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the 
> processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to 
> enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what 
> is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the 
> stability and  security of the Internet DNS?)
>  
> *IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid 
> evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as the 
> appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think the imposition 
> of a permanent model at this point of time would be counter 
> productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm principles to 
> guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This 
> should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance 
> institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name 
> registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers 
> and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and 
> accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts 
> in mind.   
>
> *Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and 
> ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition 
> of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a 
> manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the 
> Internet  DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the 
> transition to take place by  September 30, 2009? If not, what should 
> be done? What criteria should be used  to make that determination?)
> *
> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a 
> widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually 
> a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As 
> such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation 
> necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global 
> co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a 
> situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable 
> arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA 
> should be ended as soon as is practical.
>
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an 
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
> as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short 
> term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure 
> that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if 
> this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and 
> extended if necessary) annually.
>
> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe 
> that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to 
> be embedded in ICANN's operation -- either as conditions for immediate 
> cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>  
>  
> *Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there 
> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and 
> stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that 
> all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, 
> what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to 
> ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the 
>  future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in  place?
> *
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
> operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to 
> perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow.
>  
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they 
> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The 
> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>
>  
>  
> We also believe that ICANN should
>  
>  
> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to 
> commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any 
> delays or conditions;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current 
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of 
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a 
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not 
> be used to violate those  principles.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/1b3234b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 01:43:11 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:43:11 +0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:26 PM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> This is getting to be a silly argument.

twas always such

>
> Norbert: you know full well that ISOC is not governed the way Cambodia is.
>  Why make the post?
>
> Parminder:  You seem to have a lot of problems.

Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.

They don't grok the notion that these groups already represent a
multistakeholder model that has worked very well for a very long time.

Couple that with a penchant for seeing ICANN as the new North Korea,
and ISOC as a shill for corporate America, and you have a recipe for
the creation of a "Bad Idea Force" as seen in Issue 2 of this
hilarious and quite educational comic series:

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/comic.html

This is like the old "Peter Packet" cartoon from Cisco, but for the IG arena.

>
> I was on the ISOC Board for 7 years, stepping down in 2004.  I never saw any
> evidence of favoritism to commercial entities that were donors to ISOC.  I
> doubt that this has changed.

Thank you for this first hand account.

>
> I suggest that if you want an explanation of of what this membership
> applications means, you go directly to ISOC and ask them.

Better yet, join ISOC (globally or local chapter) and get involved in
the fight against "Agent FUD"

;-)
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 02:26:41 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:26:41 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Ian
>
> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I
> think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together.
> However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I raised in
> my email of Friday the 29th.
>
> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate - and
> how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are not
> just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides are
> about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether is
> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism. This
> is the real division.

and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).

>
> As I said in my quoted email
>
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than
> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
agree on, no?

>
> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
> accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
> internationalization of oversight of ICANN

Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
of geolocation of ICANN Board members.

Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:

http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm

Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
compatriots.

If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?

, and submit to the outcomes of
> the same."
>
> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think
> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear
> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  a caucus
> statement that does not take this into account.

We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.

>
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'.

Is this the "royal we"? ;-)

(The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)

yes, they apparently do see it this way.

However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
organisations, what we call CS orgs.

In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".

If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
would be useful.

<snip>
really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jun  1 02:36:23 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:36:23 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Parminder,

As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any governance
model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not believe that
external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the best one.
Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all
accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.

If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be happy
to include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus here for
external oversight as the only acceptable model or that that can be
portrayed as the position of IGC.

Ian






On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Ian
> 
> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I think
> it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together. However,
> the present draft does not take into account the issues I raised in my email
> of Friday the 29th.
> 
> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate - and how
> can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are not just
> whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides are about
> ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether is
> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism. This is
> the real division.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US
> gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be accompanied
> by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
> internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes of the
> same."
> 
> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think
> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear
> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have a caucus statement
> that does not take this into account.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
>>  JPA - final draft for comments Here is a new draft incorporating comments
>> received (as best I can). As time is running out, I would suggest that
>> comments suggest revised wording wherever possible.
>>  
>> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific
>> oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to
>> realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to
>> say something useful.
>>  
>> We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final
>> draft for a consensus call.
>>  
>> Ian Peter 
>>  
>>  
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non
>> governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>  
>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
>> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
>> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
>> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
>> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>>  
>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>  
>>  Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.
>> stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and representation)
>> necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector management of the
>> DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core
>> principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's  existing processes and
>> structures?) 
>>  
>> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
>> embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to
>> replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle which
>> has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet
>> Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is
>> an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
>> arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.
>>  
>>  Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as
>> to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the
>> most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international
>> participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind
>> the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the
>> processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable
>> industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most
>> appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and
>> security of the Internet DNS?)
>>  
>>  IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This
>> poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the
>> longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this
>> point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment
>> of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way
>> to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global
>> governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain
>> name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers
>> and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that
>> apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>>  
>>  Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and ICANN is
>> an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition of the technical
>> coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a manner that ensures the
>> continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has sufficient
>> progress been achieved for the transition to take place by  September 30,
>> 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used  to make that
>> determination?)
>>  
>> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
>> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
>> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
>> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us
>> believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>>  
>> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
>> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
>> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
>> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
>> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.
>>  
>> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>> certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded
>> in ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or
>> conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>>  
>>  
>>  Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there
>> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and
>> stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that all
>> stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are
>> they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure protection of
>> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the  future? If no, what
>> additional safeguards should be put in  place?
>>  
>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
>> various principles which follow.
>>  
>> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot
>> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need
>> to be permanently embedded are:
>>  
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>> interests and Internet users
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      transparency
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> We also believe that ICANN should
>>  
>>  
>> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to commercial
>> and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any delays or
>> conditions;
>>  
>> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent
>> Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>>  
>> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of
>> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
>> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
>> those  principles.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/4fd91637/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 Jun  1 04:21:42 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:51:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>


Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any 
> governance model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not 
> believe that external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the 
> best one.
Ian

As you say we do not agree on any governance model - but that includes a 
free-float ICANN, free from all external oversight/ accountability. That 
itself is a governance model, that we do not agree on. And the present 
draft commends this governance model. A free ICANN cannot somehow be 
presented as a 'natural' default model - that itself is a choice.

What we may  agree on, as an IGC statement, is that JPA should end. 
Beyond it there are two views - a free ICANN, and a new international 
accountability/ oversight mechanism. That is the principal dichotomy - 
and not whether JPA ending now, or a short extension as presented in the 
draft.

> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all 
> accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.
and others do not accept internalising it.

I am not being an obstructionist. I am only showing that there is one 
governance model which is clearly being endorsed here, over which there 
is no consensus, in fact there are strong voices against.
>
> If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be 
> happy to include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus 
> here for external oversight as the only acceptable model or that that 
> can be portrayed as the position of IGC.
I write this during the lunch time of a meeting, and will try to come up 
with text proposals a little later. I thought my above comments may help 
keeping the discussion going.

parminder

>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>     Ian
>
>     Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said
>     earlier I think it is important for us to give our best in
>     stitching one together. However, the present draft does not take
>     into account the issues I raised in my email of Friday the 29th.
>
>     In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this
>     debate - and how can we possibly try a compromise between the two.
>     The two sides are not just whether JPA should snap in September or
>     it may not. The two sides are about ICANN being self-contained
>     sovereign structure/ system or whether is structurally requires an
>     external oversight/ accountability mechanism. This is the real
>     division.
>
>     As I said in my quoted email
>
>     "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism
>     other than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>
>     And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
>     accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process
>     of due internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to
>     the outcomes of the same."
>
>     I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette,
>     and I think also Bill, expressed views in line with above that
>     there needs to be a clear outside accountability/ oversight
>     mechanism. We cannot have a caucus statement that does not take
>     this into account.
>
>     In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as
>      'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread
>     highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is
>     what US government sees as independent ICANN)
>
>     Parminder
>
>
>     Ian Peter wrote:
>
>         JPA - final draft for comments Here is a new draft
>         incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time is
>         running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised
>         wording wherever possible.
>          
>         Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a
>         specific oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended
>         this week. We have to realise we have different opinions here
>         and see how we can move forward to say something useful.
>          
>         We have a few days for comments -- mid week we will need to
>         present the final draft for a consensus call.
>          
>         Ian Peter
>          
>          
>         The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil
>         society and non governmental organisations and individuals
>         actively involved the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
>         process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the
>         Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum
>         for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of
>         civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes.
>         We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of
>         geographic representation; more about our coalition can be
>         found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>          
>         In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the
>         WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance,
>         carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an
>         essential element for a people-centred, inclusive,
>         development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information
>         Society". We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>         co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet
>         stability and security.
>          
>         We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with
>         ICANN , and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>          
>          *Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four
>         principles (i.e. stability; competition;  private, bottom-up
>         coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the
>          transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these
>         still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core
>         principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's  existing
>         processes and  structures?)*
>          
>         IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to
>         see them embedded in the  constitution of an independent
>         ICANN. We would propose to replace "private sector management"
>         with the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the
>         World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet
>          Governance Forum process which the US Government has
>         supported, and which is  an important facet, we believe, of
>         effective internet governance  arrangements. We also speak
>         more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.
>          
>          *Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to
>         transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities,
>         previously performed by the U.S.  Government or on behalf of
>         the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to  enable
>         industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still
>         the most appropriate model to increase competition and
>         facilitate international  participation in the coordination
>         and management of the DNS, bearing in mind  the need to
>         maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are
>         the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN
>         sufficient to enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy
>         making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in
>         mind the need to ensure the stability and  security of the
>         Internet DNS?)
>          
>          *IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid
>         evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as
>         the appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think
>         the imposition of a permanent model at this point of time
>         would be counter productive. Rather, we think the
>         establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>         model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should
>         explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance
>         institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain
>         name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses,
>         root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>         rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be
>         developed with these facts in mind.   
>          
>          *Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of
>          Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to
>         effectuate the  transition of the technical coordination and
>         management of the Internet DNS in  a manner that ensures the
>         continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has
>         sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take
>         place by  September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done?
>         What criteria should be used  to make that determination?)
>          
>         *IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share
>         a widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA
>         is actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in
>         Internet governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the
>         levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
>         and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be
>         enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where
>         all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements
>         for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA
>         should be ended as soon as is practical.
>          
>         Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an
>         ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be
>         resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us
>         believe that a short term extension of the JPA might be the
>         most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
>         necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is
>         pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended if
>         necessary) annually.
>          
>         However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we
>         believe that certain principles and actions outlined below
>         under (7) need to be embedded in ICANN's operation -- either
>         as conditions for immediate cessation or conditions to be met
>         in a short term extension of the JPA.
>          
>          
>          *Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA,
>         are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the
>          continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private
>         sector  leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are
>         adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are they? Are
>         these safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure
>         protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in
>         the  future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put
>         in  place?
>          
>         *Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>         that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in
>         ICANN's operation.
>         We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN
>         to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar
>         accountability mechanism, various principles which follow.
>          
>         The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure
>         they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder
>         group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>          
>          ·      bottom up co-ordination
>          
>
>          ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including
>         civil society interests and Internet users
>          
>
>          ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>          
>
>          ·      transparency
>          
>
>          ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>          
>
>          ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>         governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,
>         democratic, and transparent
>          
>
>          ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>          
>
>          
>          
>         We also believe that ICANN should
>          
>          
>         1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity
>         to commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO,
>         without any delays or conditions;
>          
>         2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current
>         Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>          
>         3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle
>         of freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and
>         establish a norm that its policies for administration of
>          identifiers should not be used to violate those  principles.
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/d185d3f7/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  Mon Jun  1 05:18:40 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:18:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Returning to this thread after a holiday weekend, the text seems much  
improved and more reflective of the range of views that have been  
expressed, so kudos.  A couple comments:
>
> Your Question 1
>
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see  
> them embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN.

Bylaws, not constitution

> We would propose to replace "private sector management" with the  
> multistakeholder principle

To be more precise, "with multistakeholder management, in keeping  
with..."

> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information  
> Society.....
>
>
> Your question 6.
>
> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a  
> widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is  
> actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet  
> governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co- 
> operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the  
> Internet.

This seems a rather broad and bold claim.  What cooperation exactly  
does the JPA preclude?  Does it prevent governments from working in  
GAC, posturing in ITU, fumbling about in the EU...?  If we're going to  
slap NTIA it might be helpful to explain or at least give one example,  
otherwise it might be read as a bit gratuitous.

> Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA  
> to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable  
> arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the  
> JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an  
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be  
> resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe  
> that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective  
> means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

Personally, I'd prefer a second sentence like, "Others of us believe  
that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon  
feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for  
accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

> We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in  
> future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.

I'd cut this sentence, the JPA of course would be reviewed, per  
current practice.

[BTW, re: Parminder's message this morning----"I understand that many  
IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think also Bill,  
expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear  
outside accountability/ oversight mechanism"---I at least would not  
say "oversight," which inevitably will be viewed as an authority/ 
command relationship that privileges governments, since that's how the  
term has been used in WSIS and ITU.  I don't suspect that the others  
mentioned favor that either.]
>
>
> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we  
> believe that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7)  
> need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation – either as conditions for  
> immediate cessation or conditions to be met in a short term  
> extension of the JPA.

I think it would be more reflective of the diverse views expressed on  
the list to delete "short term."  We cannot know whether a functional  
accountability framework could actually be concluded by Sept. 2010.
>
>
> Your question  7.
>
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they  
> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The  
> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

ICANN can claim, not without justification, that it embodies the  
listed principles now and has made progress in this regard since WSIS  
(see e.g. the materials at www.icann.org/en/transparency/, www.icann.org/en/psc/ 
, www.icann.org/en/reviews/, www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/....The issue is  
that it is not implementing them and related principles one could  
imagine with sufficient consistency and depth.  Presumably we are  
looking for some sort of mechanism for ongoing monitoring and  
evaluation and airing of grievances beyond what is already possible  
within ICANN's structures.  The JPA provides possibilities in this  
regard, even if they've not been used much to date by CS collectively  
(although IGP and a few other individual orgs have worked to fill the  
gaps), and that's what we'd be losing.  Is there something we could at  
least allude to by way of replacement?
>
>
> We also believe that ICANN should
>
>
> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to  
> commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any  
> delays or conditions;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current  
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of  
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a  
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not  
> be used to violate those  principles.
>

Quite helpful additions.

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/9ea39266/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  Mon Jun  1 05:25:01 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:25:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] COE on IG
Message-ID: <44A73229-C3BC-4D5C-BF67-0A533DA0393A@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

The Council of Europe just held a ministerial conference in Iceland at  
which inter alia a secretariat paper was presented on IG.  Inter alia,  
it concludes

"In order to fulfil their responsibility to ensure the public service  
value of the Internet, and to protect the right to freedom of  
expression and information on the Internet, states may need to enter  
into interstate arrangements comparable to those that apply to certain  
natural resources or risks."

So some sort of intergovernmentalism, with the emphasis on some sort--- 
they're as unclear on the options as anyone else.

http://www.ministerialconference.is/media/images/igen.pdf

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Jun  1 06:00:00 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:00:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A23A6A0.2060902@wzb.eu>




Hi Ian,

from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to 
effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think 
it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is 
widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I 
would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.

>> *Your question 6. *
>>
>> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a 
>> widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually 
>> a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As 
>> such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation 
>> necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. 
> 
> This seems a rather broad and bold claim.  What cooperation exactly does 
> the JPA preclude?  Does it prevent governments from working in GAC, 
> posturing in ITU, fumbling about in the EU...?  If we're going to slap 
> NTIA it might be helpful to explain or at least give one example, 
> otherwise it might be read as a bit gratuitous.
> 
>> Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to 
>> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable 
>> arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA 
>> should be ended as soon as is practical.
> 
>> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an 
>> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
>> as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short 
>> term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure 
>> that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. 
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer a second sentence like, "Others of us believe 
> that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon feasible 
> by a new global, multistakeholder framework for accountability, the 
> development of which should commence in early 2010."

I support Bill's suggestion for the second sentence.
> 
>> We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in 
>> future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.
> 
> I'd cut this sentence, the JPA of course would be reviewed, per current 
> practice.  
> 
> [BTW, re: Parminder's message this morning----"I understand that many 
> IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think also Bill, 
> expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear 
> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism"---I at least would not say 
> "oversight," which inevitably will be viewed as an authority/command 
> relationship that privileges governments, since that's how the term has 
> been used in WSIS and ITU.  I don't suspect that the others mentioned 
> favor that either.]

I understand your concern but is there any better wording you can think 
of that would reflect some form of authority in the accountability 
relationship between ICANN and an independent agency?
>>
>>
>> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe 
>> that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to 
>> be embedded in ICANN’s operation – either as conditions for immediate 
>> cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
> 
> I think it would be more reflective of the diverse views expressed on 
> the list to delete "short term."  We cannot know whether a functional 
> accountability framework could actually be concluded by Sept. 2010.

I agree with the deleting of "short term" as well.

jeanette

>> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they 
>> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The 
>> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
> 
> ICANN can claim, not without justification, that it embodies the listed 
> principles now and has made progress in this regard since WSIS (see e.g. 
> the materials at www.icann.org/en/transparency/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/>, www.icann.org/en/psc/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/psc/>, www.icann.org/en/reviews/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>, www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/>....The issue is that it is not 
> implementing them and related principles one could imagine with 
> sufficient consistency and depth.  Presumably we are looking for some 
> sort of mechanism for ongoing monitoring and evaluation and airing of 
> grievances beyond what is already possible within ICANN's structures. 
>  The JPA provides possibilities in this regard, even if they've not been 
> used much to date by CS collectively (although IGP and a few other 
> individual orgs have worked to fill the gaps), and that's what we'd be 
> losing.  Is there something we could at least allude to by way of 
> replacement?
>>  
>>  
>> We also believe that ICANN should
>>  
>>  
>> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to 
>> commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any 
>> delays or conditions;
>>
>> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current 
>> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>>
>> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of 
>> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a 
>> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not 
>> be used to violate those  principles.
>>  
> 
> Quite helpful additions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:19:05 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:19:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it. 

By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties. 

Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> > Ian
> >
> > Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I
> > think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together.
> > However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I
> raised in
> > my email of Friday the 29th.
> >
> > In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
> and
> > how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are
> not
> > just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides
> are
> > about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether
> is
> > structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism.
> This
> > is the real division.
> 
> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
> 
> >
> > As I said in my quoted email
> >
> > "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
> than
> > US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
> agree on, no?
> 
> >
> > And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
> > accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
> > internationalization of oversight of ICANN
> 
> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
> 
> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
> 
> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
> compatriots.
> 
> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
> 
> , and submit to the outcomes of
> > the same."
> >
> > I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
> think
> > also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a
> clear
> > outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  a caucus
> > statement that does not take this into account.
> 
> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
> 
> >
> > In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> > independent ICANN'.
> 
> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
> 
> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> > with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> > independent ICANN)
> 
> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
> 
> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
> 
> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
> 
> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
> would be useful.
> 
> <snip>
> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:21:30 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:21:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don't say that. I'm in DC right now, and you couldn't do a worse job of misreading the atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the future of the IANA contract, not JPA.

________________________________
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22 AM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments


Ian Peter wrote:
Hi Parminder,

As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any governance model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not believe that external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the best one.
Ian

As you say we do not agree on any governance model - but that includes a free-float ICANN, free from all external oversight/ accountability. That itself is a governance model, that we do not agree on. And the present draft commends this governance model. A free ICANN cannot somehow be presented as a 'natural' default model - that itself is a choice.

What we may  agree on, as an IGC statement, is that JPA should end. Beyond it there are two views - a free ICANN, and a new international accountability/ oversight mechanism. That is the principal dichotomy - and not whether JPA ending now, or a short extension as presented in the draft.


Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.
and others do not accept internalising it.

I am not being an obstructionist. I am only showing that there is one governance model which is clearly being endorsed here, over which there is no consensus, in fact there are strong voices against.


If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be happy to include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus here for external oversight as the only acceptable model or that that can be portrayed as the position of IGC.
I write this during the lunch time of a meeting, and will try to come up with text proposals a little later. I thought my above comments may help keeping the discussion going.

parminder



Ian






On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
Ian

Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together. However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I raised in my email of Friday the 29th.

In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate - and how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are not just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides are about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether is structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism. This is the real division.

As I said in my quoted email

"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes of the same."

I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have a caucus statement that does not take this into account.

In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as independent ICANN)

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
JPA - final draft for comments Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording wherever possible.

Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to say something useful.

We have a few days for comments - mid week we will need to present the final draft for a consensus call.

Ian Peter


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org> <http://www.igcaucus.org><http://www.igcaucus.org> .

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society". We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and  respectfully submit as  follows.

 Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e. stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's  existing processes and  structures?)

IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.

 Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.  Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international  participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind  the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and  security of the Internet DNS?)

 IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.

 Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by  September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used  to make that determination?)

IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.

However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded in ICANN's operation - either as conditions for immediate cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.


 Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the  future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in  place?

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's operation.
We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow.

The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

 *      bottom up co-ordination


 *      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


 *      ensuring the stability of the Internet


 *      transparency


 *      appropriate accountability mechanisms


 *      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


 *      decision making driven by the public interest




We also believe that ICANN should


1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any delays or conditions;

2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board

3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate those  principles.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/f143f133/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:27:12 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:27:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.

The misunderstandings work both ways. RIRs have paying members who elect their Board. Clear lines of accountability to clearly defined stakeholders (address block holders). IETF has no members but no binding power, it is a coordination via consensus body, no one has to use or adopt its standards. Those models evolved organically out of a fairly cohesive community. ICANN is totally different. It has binding regulatory authority over the dns industry and over the top level address space but no membership and no clear lines of accountability to its "stakeholders." It was created by fiat of the USG (it was NOT a simple evolution of IANA) 

The other models may indeed work well, but ICANN needs to be fixed. You know this. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  1 07:42:56 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:12:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>



Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it. 
>
> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties. 
>
> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>   
Milton

Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is 
all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for 
instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who 
makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree 
that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the 
present purpose.

parminder

>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I
>>> think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together.
>>> However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I
>>>       
>> raised in
>>     
>>> my email of Friday the 29th.
>>>
>>> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
>>>       
>> and
>>     
>>> how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are
>>>       
>> not
>>     
>>> just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides
>>>       
>> are
>>     
>>> about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether
>>>       
>> is
>>     
>>> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism.
>>>       
>> This
>>     
>>> is the real division.
>>>       
>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>
>>     
>>> As I said in my quoted email
>>>
>>> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
>>>       
>> than
>>     
>>> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>>>       
>> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>> agree on, no?
>>
>>     
>>> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
>>> accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
>>> internationalization of oversight of ICANN
>>>       
>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>
>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>
>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>> compatriots.
>>
>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>
>> , and submit to the outcomes of
>>     
>>> the same."
>>>
>>> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
>>>       
>> think
>>     
>>> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a
>>>       
>> clear
>>     
>>> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  a caucus
>>> statement that does not take this into account.
>>>       
>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>
>>     
>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>       
>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>
>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>     
>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
>>> independent ICANN)
>>>       
>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>
>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>
>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>
>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>> would be useful.
>>
>> <snip>
>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/f53ddf50/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:30:45 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:30:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>

McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:

McTim wrote:
> nice one Ian,
> My suggested changes below:
> [...]
> 
> multistakeholder principle
>> which has evolved from
> 
> <insert>
> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
> 
> the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>> Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
>> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
>> governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
>> your Q7 below.

I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."

Please clarify.

--c.a.


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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:38:12 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:38:12 -0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3> <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23E7D4.6000400@rits.org.br>

And so goes the McTim conspiration theory within the IGC... ;) The
rightful ones are the ones who believe the organizations quoted furnish
the perfect 3Cs world and the stupid radicals "who have problems" should
either follow them or stop trying to take the sweet from their divine
mouths.

The theory has followers...

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:26 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>> This is getting to be a silly argument.
> 
> twas always such
> 
>> Norbert: you know full well that ISOC is not governed the way Cambodia is.
>>  Why make the post?
>>
>> Parminder:  You seem to have a lot of problems.
> 
> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.
> 
> They don't grok the notion that these groups already represent a
> multistakeholder model that has worked very well for a very long time.
> 
> Couple that with a penchant for seeing ICANN as the new North Korea,
> and ISOC as a shill for corporate America, and you have a recipe for
> the creation of a "Bad Idea Force" as seen in Issue 2 of this
> hilarious and quite educational comic series:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/knowledge/comic.html
> 
> This is like the old "Peter Packet" cartoon from Cisco, but for the IG arena.
> 
>> I was on the ISOC Board for 7 years, stepping down in 2004.  I never saw any
>> evidence of favoritism to commercial entities that were donors to ISOC.  I
>> doubt that this has changed.
> 
> Thank you for this first hand account.
> 
>> I suggest that if you want an explanation of of what this membership
>> applications means, you go directly to ISOC and ask them.
> 
> Better yet, join ISOC (globally or local chapter) and get involved in
> the fight against "Agent FUD"
> 
> ;-)

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 10:45:28 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:45:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:


>
> McTim wrote:
>> nice one Ian,
>> My suggested changes below:
>> [...]
>>
>> multistakeholder principle
>>> which has evolved from
>>
>> <insert>
>> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
>>
>> the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>>> Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
>>> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
>>> governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
>>> your Q7 below.
>
> I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
> phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
> its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."
>
> Please clarify.

it would read thusly:


IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see
them embedded in the bylaws of an independent ICANN. We would propose
to
replace "private sector management" with the
words "multistakeholder management" which has evolved from the narrow
Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the the World
Summit on the Information Society and the Internet  Governance Forum
process which the US Government has supported,
and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
governance arrangements.

The above acknowledges that there was multistakeholderism b4 WSIS, that's all.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:46:59 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:46:59 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23E9E3.1090502@rits.org.br>

Ditto.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don't say that. I'm in
> DC right now, and you couldn't do a worse job of misreading the
> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and
> the future of the IANA contract, not JPA.
> 
> ________________________________ From: Parminder
> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22
> AM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re:
> [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder,
> 
> As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any
> governance model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not
> believe that external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the
> best one. Ian
> 
> As you say we do not agree on any governance model - but that
> includes a free-float ICANN, free from all external oversight/
> accountability. That itself is a governance model, that we do not
> agree on. And the present draft commends this governance model. A
> free ICANN cannot somehow be presented as a 'natural' default model -
> that itself is a choice.
> 
> What we may  agree on, as an IGC statement, is that JPA should end.
> Beyond it there are two views - a free ICANN, and a new international
> accountability/ oversight mechanism. That is the principal dichotomy
> - and not whether JPA ending now, or a short extension as presented
> in the draft.
> 
> 
> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we
> all accept, but we do not all accept externalising this. and others
> do not accept internalising it.
> 
> I am not being an obstructionist. I am only showing that there is one
> governance model which is clearly being endorsed here, over which
> there is no consensus, in fact there are strong voices against.
> 
> 
> If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be
> happy to include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus
> here for external oversight as the only acceptable model or that that
> can be portrayed as the position of IGC. I write this during the
> lunch time of a meeting, and will try to come up with text proposals
> a little later. I thought my above comments may help keeping the
> discussion going.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: 
> Ian
> 
> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said
> earlier I think it is important for us to give our best in stitching
> one together. However, the present draft does not take into account
> the issues I raised in my email of Friday the 29th.
> 
> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
> and how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two
> sides are not just whether JPA should snap in September or it may
> not. The two sides are about ICANN being self-contained sovereign
> structure/ system or whether is structurally requires an external
> oversight/ accountability mechanism. This is the real division.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
> than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
> accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of
> due internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the
> outcomes of the same."
> 
> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and
> I think also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there
> needs to be a clear outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We
> cannot have a caucus statement that does not take this into account.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as
> 'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread
> highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is what
> US government sees as independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: JPA - final draft for comments Here is a new draft
> incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time is running
> out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording wherever
> possible.
> 
> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific
> oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We
> have to realise we have different opinions here and see how we can
> move forward to say something useful.
> 
> We have a few days for comments - mid week we will need to present
> the final draft for a consensus call.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved
> the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the
> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our
> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and
> for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet
> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide
> spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be
> found at www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>
> <http://www.igcaucus.org><http://www.igcaucus.org> .
> 
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and
> non-discriminatory Information Society". We also recognise the need
> for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to
> ensure Internet stability and security.
> 
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN
> , and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> 
> Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles
> (i.e. stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and
> representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private
> sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate
> principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively
> integrated into ICANN's  existing processes and  structures?)
> 
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see
> them embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would
> propose to replace "private sector management" with the
> multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on
> the Information Society and the Internet  Governance Forum process
> which the US Government has supported, and which is  an important
> facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements. We
> also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.
> 
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to
> transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously
> performed by the U.S.  Government or on behalf of the U.S.
> Government, to the private sector so as to  enable industry
> leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most
> appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate
> international  participation in the coordination and management of
> the DNS, bearing in mind  the need to maintain the security and
> stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures
> currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable  industry leadership
> and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate
> model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and  security
> of the Internet DNS?)
> 
> IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid
> evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as the
> appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think the
> imposition of a permanent model at this point of time would be
> counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm
> principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way
> to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global
> governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry
> (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses,
> root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights,
> and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
> 
> Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and
> ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition
> of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in
> a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the
> Internet  DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the
> transition to take place by  September 30, 2009? If not, what should
> be done? What criteria should be used  to make that determination?)
> 
> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a
> widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is
> actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet
> governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global
> co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the
> Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond
> the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have
> equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us
> believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
> 
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved
> as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short
> term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure
> that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if
> this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and
> extended if necessary) annually.
> 
> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
> that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to
> be embedded in ICANN's operation - either as conditions for immediate
> cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the
> JPA.
> 
> 
> Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there
> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and
> stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that
> all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes,
> what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to
> ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in
> the  future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in
> place?
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by
> ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow.
> 
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they
> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The
> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
> 
> *      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> *      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> *      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> *      transparency
> 
> 
> *      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> *      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic,
> and transparent
> 
> 
> *      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also believe that ICANN should
> 
> 
> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to
> commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any
> delays or conditions;
> 
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
> 
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not
> be used to violate those  principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:45:52 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:45:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23E9A0.7020901@rits.org.br>

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external
> "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of
> discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that,
> GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.

I agree this oversight idea is too generic and might lead to any sort of
relationship. I think the idea is not to propose a GAC-like oversight,
since the GAC does anything but oversight, since Icann is currently
shielded against it.

> 
> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are
> interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that
> constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for
> harmed parties.

The challenge here is that "legal rules", unlike the Internet, are bound
to a State or a [multilateral] treaty. Beyond this there are only
recommendations. How to bind an internationalized Icann to "legal
rules"? Via a treaty? Unless the hypothesis is that, whatever happens,
Icann will remain a legally California+USA-bound entity.


frt rgds

--c.a.

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:50:54 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23EACE.50906@rits.org.br>

OK. It is "it's" or "its"?? If the first, something is missing to give
meaning to the phrase.

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>> McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:
> 
> 
>> McTim wrote:
>>> nice one Ian,
>>> My suggested changes below:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> multistakeholder principle
>>>> which has evolved from
>>> <insert>
>>> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
>>>
>>> the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>>>> Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
>>>> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
>>>> governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
>>>> your Q7 below.
>> I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
>> phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
>> its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."
>>
>> Please clarify.
> 
> it would read thusly:
> 
> 
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see
> them embedded in the bylaws of an independent ICANN. We would propose
> to
> replace "private sector management" with the
> words "multistakeholder management" which has evolved from the narrow
> Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the the World
> Summit on the Information Society and the Internet  Governance Forum
> process which the US Government has supported,
> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
> governance arrangements.
> 
> The above acknowledges that there was multistakeholderism b4 WSIS, that's all.
> 
> 

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:48:33 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:48:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A23EA41.3080104@rits.org.br>

Parm, good. I just sent a note with similar concerns.

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external
>> "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of
>> discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like,
>> sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.
>> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are
>> interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that
>> constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for
>> harmed parties.
>> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically
>> overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as
>> a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on
>> ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It
>> is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>>   
> Milton
> 
> Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is
> all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for
> instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who
> makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree
> that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the
> present purpose.
> 
> parminder
> 
>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said
>>>> earlier I
>>>> think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one
>>>> together.
>>>> However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I
>>>>       
>>> raised in
>>>    
>>>> my email of Friday the 29th.
>>>>
>>>> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
>>>>       
>>> and
>>>    
>>>> how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are
>>>>       
>>> not
>>>    
>>>> just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides
>>>>       
>>> are
>>>    
>>>> about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether
>>>>       
>>> is
>>>    
>>>> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism.
>>>>       
>>> This
>>>    
>>>> is the real division.
>>>>       
>>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>>
>>>    
>>>> As I said in my quoted email
>>>>
>>>> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
>>>>       
>>> than
>>>    
>>>> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>>>>       
>>> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>>> agree on, no?
>>>
>>>    
>>>> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
>>>> accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of
>>>> due
>>>> internationalization of oversight of ICANN
>>>>       
>>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>>
>>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>>
>>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>>> compatriots.
>>>
>>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>>
>>> , and submit to the outcomes of
>>>    
>>>> the same."
>>>>
>>>> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
>>>>       
>>> think
>>>    
>>>> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a
>>>>       
>>> clear
>>>    
>>>> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  a caucus
>>>> statement that does not take this into account.
>>>>       
>>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>>       
>>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>>
>>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>>    
>>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government
>>>> sees as
>>>> independent ICANN)
>>>>       
>>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>>
>>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>>
>>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>>
>>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>>> would be useful.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 10:57:08 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:57:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
	 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
>> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
>> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
>> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.
>
> The misunderstandings work both ways. RIRs have paying members who elect their Board.

yes, they are all Associations AFAIK, members of which elect their
governing body.

> Clear lines of accountability to clearly defined stakeholders (address block holders).

Address block holders are not necessarily members of an RIR
association (but most are).  Members of an RIR community are not
necessarily members of an RIR association (but most are).  There are
stakeholders who are neither Members of an association nor are they
address space holders.

> IETF has no members but no binding power, it is a coordination via consensus body, no one has to use or adopt its standards. Those models evolved organically out of a fairly cohesive community. ICANN is totally different. It has binding regulatory authority over the dns industry

We have heard from Karl and others that this is not necessarily the case.

 and over the top level address space but no membership and no clear
lines of accountability to its "stakeholders." It was created by fiat
of the USG (it was NOT a simple evolution of IANA)
>
> The other models may indeed work well, but ICANN needs to be fixed. You know this.

The "other models" are part and parcel of the ICANN model.  If it
ain't broken.... ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Jun  1 11:37:19 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:37:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] Obama on security, net neutrality, civil liberties
In-Reply-To: <p06240809c64683ffc9bd@221.115.9.43>
References: <p06240809c64683ffc9bd@221.115.9.43>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906010837x5f6fc51cp3ff45a448461f5cf@mail.gmail.com>

 It depends on where you stand vis-a-vis the post-JPA future for
ICANN, isn't it?

Truth be told, I have always been skeptical of an ICANN future without
JPA or some successor different only in name.  I figured the route
would have been paved by invoking the broad security interests of the
US cohabited in a JPA or some such formulation.

The mutterings you hear from Brussels is a preemptive strike against
and is reflection of the European discomfort on subject.

The week that was confirmed my own thinking; the plan is in play.

Carlton

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Interesting things happening in the US:
>
> President Obama's speech "Securing Our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure", <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/> includes the paragraph:
>
> "Let me also be clear about what we will not do.  Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.  We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.  Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free."
>
> Administration supporting network neutrality, security *and* civil liberty and privacy.
>
> Next:
>
> ICANN oversight hearing in the Congress, Thursday June 4. "Event: 'Oversight Of The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers (ICANN)' "
> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=47>
>
> Anyone know the speakers etc?
>
> And interesting, seems Andrew McLaughlin will join the Obama administration as Deputy Chief Technology Officer, reporting to Aneesh Chopra <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-obama-administration/>. You can see Andrew talking about technology and government in this video from the Obama transition <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4>.
>
> Think Friday was a good day.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Jun  1 11:45:56 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:45:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C78E9BA4-8606-4EAB-B76C-E6AF31B81E45@telus.net>

On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can  
> whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would  
> just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already  
> converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the  
> missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but  
> lawful constraint.

Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future,  
and not specifically for the draft.

In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is  
another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability  
mechanism."  In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an  
effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop  
a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet  
Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in  
challenging  ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions.   The  
purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our  
view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards.  It  
could and should state:
   - who would benefit, and why
   - how they would benefit, immediately and in the future
   - who would bear the costs and risks, and why
   - what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future
   - who would answer publicly, for what, and when

  For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see:  
http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html

GG


> On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
>>
>> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make  
>>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the  
>>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as  
>>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than  
>>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:
>>>   1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches  
>>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining  
>>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)
>>>   2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing  
>>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be  
>>> any better. (infinite recursion).
>>
>>
>> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts -  
>> not some oversight body.  But it also begins before the fact of  
>> acting - with clear statements of intentions.  Thus the standard  
>> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating  
>> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."
>>
>> "For every important responsibility there is accountability.  
>> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully  
>> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the  
>> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act,  
>> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is  
>> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to  
>> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant  
>> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering  
>> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect  
>> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must  
>> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not  
>> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to  
>> the public. ...  Holding to account also includes validating the  
>> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary  
>> principle. Validation of the answering means independent  
>> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who  
>> can competently assess it."  Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide  
>> to Public Accountability. http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/ 
>> index.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 kpeters at tldainc.org  Mon Jun  1 12:09:08 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:09:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
Message-ID: <20090601090908.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.f76da24be6.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/9f5e5878/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  Mon Jun  1 12:56:55 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:56:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <20090601090704.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.91fb596297.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090601090704.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.91fb596297.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <2A225D75-3143-4ADF-93A6-758FDE899C89@telus.net>

Perhaps to clarify?  I believe Milton Mueller is right to note the  
absence of external oversight, but not necessarily right in seeking  
some other external means to put a different leash on ICANN.  We are,  
after all, talking about governance of self-organizing systems, where  
the rules about changing the rules are internal to each of the  
members of the system.  In what I believe will be continuing absence  
of an agreement on a means of external constrain, legal or otherwise,  
I was pointing to a mechanism whereby members of the "system" could  
remind ICANN effectively of its responsibility to account.  The means  
to "challenge" internally exists and provides a basis for dialogue on  
future intentions.  And it is always a citizen's responsibility to  
remind a governing agency that it is failing to meet its  
responsibility, including its responsibility to account.

GG

On 1-Jun-09, at 9:07 AM, Karl E. Peters wrote:

> Perhaps another question to add to the below list is who and how  
> would make a challenge that a policy failed in its directive or  
> hurt more than it helped so as to bring about the use of the last  
> question, being who would be responsible and how...  Without a  
> means to challenge and overturn, "responsibility" will have no  
> teeth and the user no mechanism to protest effectively.
>
> -Karl E. Peters
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> From: Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net>
> Date: Mon, June 01, 2009 11:45 am
> To: governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can
> > whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would
> > just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already
> > converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the
> > missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but
> > lawful constraint.
>
> Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future,
> and not specifically for the draft.
>
> In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is
> another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability
> mechanism." In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an
> effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop
> a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet
> Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in
> challenging ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions. The
> purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our
> view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards. It
> could and should state:
> - who would benefit, and why
> - how they would benefit, immediately and in the future
> - who would bear the costs and risks, and why
> - what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future
> - who would answer publicly, for what, and when
>
> For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see:
> http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html
>
> GG
>
>
> > On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make
> >>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the
> >>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as
> >>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than
> >>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:
> >>> 1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches
> >>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining
> >>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)
> >>> 2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing
> >>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be
> >>> any better. (infinite recursion).
> >>
> >>
> >> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts -
> >> not some oversight body. But it also begins before the fact of
> >> acting - with clear statements of intentions. Thus the standard
> >> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating
> >> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."
> >>
> >> "For every important responsibility there is accountability.
> >> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully
> >> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the
> >> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act,
> >> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is
> >> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to
> >> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant
> >> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering
> >> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect
> >> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must
> >> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not
> >> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to
> >> the public. ... Holding to account also includes validating the
> >> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary
> >> principle. Validation of the answering means independent
> >> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who
> >> can competently assess it." Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide
> >> to Public Accountability. http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/
> >> index.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jun  1 16:08:29 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:08:29 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C64A725D.2921%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Sorry Milton, I don¹t quite understand ­ can you point out which sentence in
the draft (or sentences) you believe we should remove? The draft is at the
bottom of this message

If it¹s the section


On 1/06/09 9:21 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don¹t say that. I¹m in DC right
> now, and you couldn¹t do a worse job of misreading the atmospherics here than
> to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN accountability and subjection
> to laws that keep it accountable and the future of the IANA contract, not JPA.
>  
> 
> 
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22 AM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>  
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any governance
> model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not believe that
> external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the best one.
> Ian
> 
> As you say we do not agree on any governance model - but that includes a
> free-float ICANN, free from all external oversight/ accountability. That
> itself is a governance model, that we do not agree on. And the present draft
> commends this governance model. A free ICANN cannot somehow be presented as a
> 'natural' default model - that itself is a choice.
> 
> What we may  agree on, as an IGC statement, is that JPA should end. Beyond it
> there are two views - a free ICANN, and a new international accountability/
> oversight mechanism. That is the principal dichotomy - and not whether JPA
> ending now, or a short extension as presented in the draft.
> 
> 
> 
> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all accept,
> but we do not all accept externalising this.
> and others do not accept internalising it.
> 
> I am not being an obstructionist. I am only showing that there is one
> governance model which is clearly being endorsed here, over which there is no
> consensus, in fact there are strong voices against.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be happy to
> include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus here for external
> oversight as the only acceptable model or that that can be portrayed as the
> position of IGC.
> I write this during the lunch time of a meeting, and will try to come up with
> text proposals a little later. I thought my above comments may help keeping
> the discussion going.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Ian
> 
> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I think
> it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together. However,
> the present draft does not take into account the issues I raised in my email
> of Friday the 29th.
> 
> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate - and how
> can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are not just
> whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides are about
> ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether is
> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism. This is
> the real division.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US
> gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be accompanied
> by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
> internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes of the
> same."
> 
> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I think
> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a clear
> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have a caucus statement
> that does not take this into account.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
> JPA - final draft for comments Here is a new draft incorporating comments
> received (as best I can). As time is running out, I would suggest that
> comments suggest revised wording wherever possible.
>  
> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific oversight
> model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to realise we
> have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to say something
> useful.
>  
> We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final
> draft for a consensus call.
>  
> Ian Peter 
>  
>  
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non
> governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit
> on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for
> discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society
> contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred
> members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our
> coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org>
> <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>  
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
> respectfully submit as  follows.
>  
>  Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.
> stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and representation)
> necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector management of the DNS.
> Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles
> been effectively integrated into ICANN's  existing processes and  structures?)
>  
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
> embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to
> replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle which
> has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet
> Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is
> an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
> arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below.
>  
>  Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to
> enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most
> appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international
> participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind
> the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the
> processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable
> industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most
> appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and
> security of the Internet DNS?)
>  
>  IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This
> poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the
> longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this
> point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment
> of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to
> proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance
> institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name
> registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and
> addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that
> apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>  
>  Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and ICANN is an
> agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition of the technical
> coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a manner that ensures the
> continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has sufficient progress
> been achieved for the transition to take place by  September 30, 2009? If not,
> what should be done? What criteria should be used  to make that
> determination?)
>  
> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
> have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe
> the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>  
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.
>  
> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded in
> ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or conditions
> to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>  
>  
>  Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there
> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and stability
> of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that all stakeholder
> interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are they? Are these
> safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure protection of stakeholder
> interests and the model itself in the  future? If no, what additional
> safeguards should be put in  place?
>  
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
> principles which follow.
>  
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need
> to be permanently embedded are:
>  
>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>  
> 
>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>  
> 
>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>  
> 
>  ·      transparency
>  
> 
>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>  
> 
>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>  
> 
>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>  
> 
>  
>  
> We also believe that ICANN should
>  
>  
> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to commercial
> and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any delays or
> conditions;
>  
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent Review
> Process, is binding on its  Board
>  
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of
> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
> those  principles.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090602/44993a91/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  Mon Jun  1 16:12:36 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:12:36 -0500
Subject: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A1FDE86.90604@itforchange.net>
References: <C645DB85.2748%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A1FDE86.90604@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906011312y462dd932mcbdb5f4e942119ed@mail.gmail.com>

I support Parminder's views.

Carlton

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Ian
>
> I thought that we would go for a compromise of the kind that will call for
> end of JPA but mention that this should be accompanied by clear commitment
> by all parties to begin a process of due internationalization of oversight
> of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes of the same.
>
> While it may be a difficult be clear about how the above is possible, we
> can leave that vague in the statement. However the above formulation should
> partly satisfy both sides - those who want JPA to end and those who want it
> to be extended temporarily till alternative internationalised arrangements
> are worked out ( with due multistakeholder elements etc). I thought these
> were the two principal sides of the discussion which took place on this list
> a few days ago. The present formulation is too much on the side of those who
> just want JPA to end. Vague mentions of some binding principles means
> little; of course everyone is ready to adopt some binding principles when
> one is not clear what they are. For many of us an external accountability/
> oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute
> non-negotiable.
>
> Two more things;
>
> We should *not add* multistakeholder principle to private sector leadership
> but ask for the term 'private sector' to be *replaced* by 'multi-stakeholder
> system'. Also we need to clearly mention that we are not for an industry-led
> ICANN but for  a multi-stakeholder system. To mention this is absolutely
> necessary because one of the questions clearly mentions the term 'industry
> led'.
>
> Second thing: we should mention explicitly that WSIS principles should be
> explicitly included in the principles agreed to for ICANN constitution.
> These principles are agreed to by the whole world community. And as was
> discussed in open consultations and MAG meeting WSIS principles are not just
> about democratic, multilateral, transparent, multistakeholder IG  etc (para
> 29 of Tunis agenda)  also the people-centric, development-oriented and
> inclusive aspects of IG (para 31).
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Parminder
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> I still believe that the JPA can be ended, subject to ICANN agreeing to
> certain binding conditions. That I think is a far preferable arrangement if
> it can happen.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> On 29/05/09 5:36 PM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>  McTim.. that is exactly the question:
>
>
>  between ICANN and ????
>
>
>
>  It is because of those ???? that some of us believe that a temporary
> extension of the JPA is needed - merely until the ???? can be replaced
> with something relatively tangible and accessible.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090601/8c4864a6/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 Jun  1 16:44:33 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:14:33 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
Message-ID: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>

Having read the discussion on the list, and trying to reconcile the various viewpoints, YJ and I have come up with the following first draft proposal for a statement to the IGF Secretariat regarding the IGF Review process. Please add your comments. Thanks! Ginger

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 its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments and the developing world in the IGF and
the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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. To do so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process. We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

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.




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

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


From Dvorshak at ISOC.org  Mon Jun  1 16:56:25 2009
From: Dvorshak at ISOC.org (Drew Dvorshak)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:56:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clarifications on ISOC's Platinum Sponsorship Program
Message-ID: <FA03C407263F425A88CA9EB43E902538@ISOC.local>

Dear colleagues,
As ISOC’s organization membership program lead, I would like to briefly
address recent points of discussion on this list regarding ISOC’s Platinum
Membership program.  First, we are taking this opportunity to review all the
language on the Platinum level and the organization membership program in
general to ensure accuracy and clarity in descriptions of its value
proposition and benefits at all levels. Additionally I wanted to reinforce a
few of the points already made in the thread in question and also make a few
clarifications.

1. ISOC is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and its mission is to promote
the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of
all people throughout the world.  It does so through support of the open
standards process; global education, training and capacity building and
principled participation in public policy and economic fora.  It does not
engage in “lobbying” activities on its own behalf or that of members,
sponsors or any other parties. 

2. Platinum members indeed have the option to designate program areas and or
activities to which they would like their contribution to be applied.  The
same document referenced in the thread contains several good possible
examples.  However, in no way does “sponsorship” or “membership” constitute
the purchase of any role or influence in the management or decision-making
processes associated with that or *any* activity, ISOC itself or the IETF.
Under absolutely no circumstances does any sponsor or member dictate ISOC
policy or gain any favor, advantage or status in the standards process as a
result of a funding relationship.

3. At any given time, 2 of the organizations recognized as Platinum members
are so because they hosted an IETF meeting within the last year which means
that they paid for costs of networking requirements and meeting space
(latter applies only to meetings outside the U.S.).  At least twice in the
past three years, organizations recognized for IETF meeting support were
actually not even financial contributors to ISOC.

4. As regards “enhanced access” and “your voice being heard” this is an
example of where our program language could indeed use a fresh look and I
appreciate the notice.  After reviewing those sentences I do see how,
without proper context, one might interpret them to mean “enhanced access”
to and having “your voice is heard” in a policy forum, etc. However, that is
not what is meant at all.  It is the opportunity for access to and an
open/objective ear from ISOC staff and management that is at the core of our
stakeholder engagement model. Most importantly, this applies *equally* to
*all* organization and chapter members as well as other stakeholder groups,
not just Platinum contributors.

As you all know, ISOC is, by nature, a consultative organization which
values the intellectual capital present in the vast array of stakeholder
groups with whom it has relationships.  Organization members and Chapters
are certainly among them.  

ISOC staff have numerous in-person and web/telephone conference meetings
with representatives from chapters and organization members to discuss and
solicit input on their work and important developments in various fora in
which ISOC participates.  They also pose questions for discussion, and
solicit nominations of individuals with specific expertise for participation
in various activities, etc.  

Again, level of membership has absolutely no bearing on access to these
dialogues, weighting of ideas, consideration for participation in any
activity, etc.  In fact, I frequently invite representatives to participate
from organizations that are not even members or contributors to give them a
practical example of how we engage members and other stakeholders.  Also
very important is that it is frequently communicated to and well understood
by participants that such consultations are open and voluntary and
specifically not “instruction” or “dictation” to ISOC staff/management.

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the dialogue. I welcome any
questions or additional comments.  I am not a subscriber to the list so my
coordinates follow. 
 
Andrew Dvorshak
Sr. Mgr., Organizational Membership
Internet Society (ISOC)
1775 Wiehle Ave., Ste. 201
Reston, VA 20910-5108
USA
 
dvorshak at isoc.org
Office: +1 703 439 2129
Fax: +1 703 326 9881



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

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Jun  1 22:39:52 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon,  1 Jun 2009 19:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: C64A725D.2921%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1243910097.34613.4@lists.cpsr.org>

Dear Ian,

I see that I am somewhat in the Minority in regards to extending the JPA.

Among the posting I have read through, not one has offered any evidence or
proof of assurances that ICANN will follow any practice or suggestion once it
has freed itself from the Department of Commerce's Internet Oversight Committee
(JPA & MoU). Nor has anyone offered any 'Mechanism-of-Assurance(s)' that ICANN
will proportidly follow. 

A review of past call(s) for "Structural Reform" has shown that, not only had
the proposals fallen on deaf-ears but have also been abandoned or reformulated
so much that they no longer resemble their original intent.

For example, in regards to an attempt of "Oversite", the 'Generic Top Level
Domain Memorandum of Understanding | http://www.gtld-mou.org/  
and it's Policy Oversight Committee | http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#1.4

The gTLD-MoU now provides that the POC consists of  twelve members appointed as
follows:
 
IANA
ISOC
Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”)
Council of Registrars (“CORE”)
International Trademark Association (“INTA”)
World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)
International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”)
Representative of the Depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on the
Generic Top Level Domain Name 
Space of the Internet Domain Name System (“gTLD-MoU”) (the ITU)

Now-these! were Heavyweight Contenders - R.I.P AUG 12, 1999. 

ICANN has no MoU with these Contenders that incorporates the desires expressed
in your current daft letter.

Reforms, how many reform attempts have we seen? 

Icann-at-Large, Icann-atLarge II, WSIS, IGF I/II/III, and Danny Younger (The
One-Man Reform Machine). All of these attempts called upon ICANN to make
reforms, either by Mandate or Forum Conclusion, only one, Danny
Younger had succeeded in bring about the reform via ICANN's ALAC (At-Large
Advisory Committee), with regards to Register's Domain Registrations Practices,
too which the net result is ICANN's Help Desk InterNIC Complaint Form |
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

I recall a paper of Hans & Milton April 2005
What to Do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural Reform |
http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf

Wherein it depicts three types of accountability.

Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Peer-to-Peer

In the Conclusion "... National governments would benefit from shifting from an
advisory role to an oversight role. Internet users and diverse stakeholders
would benefit from direct and equitable participation in policymaking bodies.
Developing countries would benefit from leveraging their established expertise
in ITU processes. All Internet users would benefit from market discipline of
coordinated competition between regulatory entities. ..."

Milton?: 'National governments would benefit from shifting from an advisory
role to an oversight role' In four years, your comments of late ... have gone
180. (New & Improved - Reformulated)
Have you've become the Esther Dyson of 'International Internet Globalization'.

I love you Man :-)

-

Anyway my point in the beginning is of Minority Interests, Yes I support
extending the JPA (for a limited time). I feel strongly that Government
Oversite (USG, be that as it may) provides assurances that safeguard multistake
holder interest within ICANN processes. In particualry when there is a
Minority-Interest. 

MoU's, Agreements, Treaties, and such don't operate in way that Court's and
their Opinions do. They* don't provide for a Decenting Opinion (a Minority
Interest).

Modern Democratic Governments protect these Minority Interest with systematic
provisions (provided by their Constitutions).

For that alone, I would hope that you would see clear the reasoning to wit, of
your original statements in regards to 'question 6'.

JPA - " A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"
-
* MoU's, Agreements, Treaties____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jun  1 22:55:59 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:55:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D1D8C8E-E1DD-4FAD-A673-4BB7496DF138@ciroap.org>

On 02/06/2009, at 4:44 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 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. To do so, governments must be motivated to  
> participate fully in the IGF process. We ask whether a more  
> substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or  
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

I would add "This may in turn require the reconsideration of a format  
for outcome-focussed discussions that would facilitate the generation  
of such an output document - for example, the roundtables that were  
originally considered for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting."

-- 
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  Tue Jun  2 00:37:37 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:07:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,

After going through your draft and the comments on your draft so far, I feel
that ICANN deserves some positive references which are missing in the
draft.  Is there anything said anywhere in the draft to indicate that ICANN
has handled its functions well so far, is handling its responsibilities
well, and will do so in future? That is what needs to be emphasized in the
IGC response to the JPA review questions. The JPA review questions might be
specific but the answers to the specific questions need to reflect how the
IGC feels about ICANN and its capacity to be independent. The present draft
and the comments to be incorporated do not point to such a positive
statement.

The draft tends to focus on what is wrong with ICANN rather than on what is
wrong with JPA. Different members of the caucus have differing opinions (
and in some cases different agendas ) on what ICANN should or should not do.
The focus on some finer points, such as one on GNSO, add to the confusing
opinion that ICANN is not good enough ?

some more comments inline.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). As
time
> is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording
> wherever possible.
>
> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific
> oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have
to
> realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to
> say something useful.
>
> We have a few days for comments – mid week we will need to present the
final
> draft for a consensus call.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide
a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
>  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.
> stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and
> representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector
> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so,
> have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's
>  existing processes and  structures?)
>
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
> embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to
> replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle
> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
> Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
> and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
> governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
> your Q7 below.

The question is whether ICANN has integrated within its existing processes
and structures,  the four core principles  (i.e.stability; competition;
private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) as articulated in the
DNS White Paper been.  Is the caucus saying Yes, or No?  It seems to imply
No, ICANN hasn't done that yet. No, ICANN hasn't made a beginning on these
principles yet. Is that what you mean?  There is no answer under this
question except "we would like to see them embedded" which implies that the
principles are not embedded yet. The rest of the response is shifted to
question no 7, where the IGC lists 'principles ... need to be embedded" and
ICANN 'should' do this, should do that...

Hasn't ICANN embedded these principles already? Isn't ICANN practicing
bottom-up coordination already? Why don't we say so? There are always some
imperfections, but if the overall tone of the response is discontent, then
the implied response is taken as "we need the JPA, now and at all times". Is
this what the IGC would like the JPA review to infer?

>
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>  Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so
as
> to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making.

JPA uses the words "private sector" and "industry leadership" again and
again.Transition to Network Solutions? Or transition to the telecom
industry? Even these words need to be replaced with "mutli-stakeholder
management? mutli-stakholder governance? multi-stakholder administration?
mutli-stakholder oversight?

> Is this still
> the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate
> international  participation in the coordination and management of the
DNS,
> bearing in mind  the need to maintain the security and stability of the
DNS?
> If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN
> sufficient to enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If
> not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to
ensure
> the stability and  security of the Internet DNS?)
>
> IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution.
This
> poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the
> longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at
this
> point of time would be counter productive.

Evasive. The IGC does not have anything to suggest?

>Rather, we think the
> establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the
> appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is
a
> global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry
> (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root
> servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and
> accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in
> mind.
>
> Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and ICANN is
> an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition of the
> technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a manner
that
> ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has
> sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by
>  September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be
> used  to make that determination?)
>
> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance.

The response here is not direct enough. May be say that JPA is contrary to
multi-stakholder principle. It is not right that it should continue, but at
the same time, to ensure a smooth transition, suggest ways by which a NEW
ARRANGEMENT is put in place such as a "oversight transfer agreement" with
mechanisms to ensure a smooth post-transition ICANN.

>As such, it is seen as
> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the
security
> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us
> believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN
develops.
> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the
JPA
> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.

So, the IGC believes that the JPA should be extended for many, many years
with annual reviews?

>
> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be
embedded
> in ICANN’s operation – either as conditions for immediate cessation or
> conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>
>
> Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there
> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and
> stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that all
> stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are
> they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure protection
of
> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the  future? If no, what
> additional safeguards should be put in  place?
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to
perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
> various principles which follow.
>
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which
> need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>
>
>
> We also believe that ICANN should
>
>
> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to
commercial
> and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any delays or
> conditions;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent
> Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom
of
> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
> those  principles.

Why these specific points? Why GNSO as a constituency singled out here and a
point made? There are several constituencies within ICANN and several tasks
to be carried out. Is the IGC Caucus seeking US Government help in handling
some specific agenda items?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090602/63225ee7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 00:42:09 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:42:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>

Ginger,

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments

Are we, really?

> and the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> 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. To do
> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process.
> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
am happy with.

>
> 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.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 06:17:17 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:47:17 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>

I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process must 
include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just talking 
to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big picture. If 
the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) will be 
distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they (governments) 
can go off and do business as usual, we are not using the IGF process to 
effect real change. Not only do governments have to listen to us, we 
have to listen to them.

Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include this. 
Please opine. Thanks! gp

McTim wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>   
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments
>>     
>
> Are we, really?
>
>   
>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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. To do
>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process.
>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>     
>
> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
> am happy with.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun  2 08:07:57 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:07:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com> <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A25161D.7080404@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I agree that it would be important to get greater government involvement 
in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we would want to 
write to the secretariat saying this, since they are acutely aware of 
the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might be misrepresented 
in some circles as lending credence to the purported need for a more 
intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the views expressed in IGC 
over the years on this point, I don't suspect we're going to get 
consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a more substantial 
output in the form of a statement, recommendations or guidelines would 
catalyze this engagement." 

In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should do 
it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, from a 
CS standpoint?

Best,

Bill

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) 
> will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have to 
> listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>
> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include 
> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>
> McTim wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>  
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>> and broad
>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>> process by
>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>> principle.
>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>> governments
>>>     
>>
>> Are we, really?
>>
>>  
>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> 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. To do
>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>> process.
>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>     
>>
>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
>> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
>> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
>> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
>> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
>> am happy with.
>>
>>  
>>> 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.
>>>     
>>
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 08:59:57 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:29:57 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
Message-ID: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>



Thanks Bill,

I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.

If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
completely?

Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
Can we offer a realistic alternative?

Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.

Thanks! gp

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it would be important to get greater government 
> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
> from a CS standpoint?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>
>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include 
>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>  
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad
>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>> process by
>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>> principle.
>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>> governments
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Are we, really?
>>>
>>>  
>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental 
>>>> forum
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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. To do
>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>> process.
>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
>>> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
>>> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
>>> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
>>> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
>>> am happy with.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> 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.
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 09:25:17 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:25:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
References: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>

How's this:

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 its successful
implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until
the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the
IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.


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


One sentence removed in one para and 2 words gone from another

-- 
Cheers,

McTim



On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining us
> as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor is it
> likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? Can
> we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 10:15:20 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:45:20 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2533F8.4010707@gmail.com>

McTim (and all) Small proposed changes noted in CAPS:

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 its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the NEW proposal WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.



McTim wrote:
> How's this:
>
> 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 its successful
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until
> the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the
> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------
>
>
> One sentence removed in one para and 2 words gone from another
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jun  2 10:28:50 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:28:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
	 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

It's broken

> -----Original Message-----
>  
> The "other models" are part and parcel of the ICANN model.  If it
> ain't broken.... ;-)
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 13:04:52 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>

I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...

But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical one of
lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.  

The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might have
to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions concerning
IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological means.

Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices around
what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the Internet
(q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open governance),
questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of Internet
governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and disempower/limit
access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique of IG issues coming
from indigenous communities), mechanisms for opening up IG to effective
interaction with various groups with special needs (q.v. the contrast
between the lobbying effectiveness of the evidently very well resourced
"youth at risk" lobby with the seemingly much greater difficulty with
intervention from the various disability groups etc.etc.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]




Thanks Bill,

I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.

If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
completely?

Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
Can we offer a realistic alternative?

Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.

Thanks! gp

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
> from a CS standpoint?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>
>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>  
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>> and broad
>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>> process by
>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>> principle.
>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>> governments
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Are we, really?
>>>
>>>  
>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>> forum
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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. To do
>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>> process.
>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  
>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the 
>>> mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's 
>>> not a format I am happy with.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> 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.
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  2 13:09:51 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:39:51 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>
References: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A255CDF.4050801@gmail.com>

Exactly. That is why a discussion forum like the IGF is precisely the 
place to hear these unheard or rarely heard voices. Do you have a 
suggestion on how to improve the wording of the proposal?

Thanks!



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...
>
> But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical one of
> lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.  
>
> The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might have
> to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions concerning
> IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological means.
>
> Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices around
> what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the Internet
> (q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open governance),
> questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of Internet
> governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and disempower/limit
> access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique of IG issues coming
> from indigenous communities), mechanisms for opening up IG to effective
> interaction with various groups with special needs (q.v. the contrast
> between the lobbying effectiveness of the evidently very well resourced
> "youth at risk" lobby with the seemingly much greater difficulty with
> intervention from the various disability groups etc.etc.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
> us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
> is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
> Can we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
>
> William Drake wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
>> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
>> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
>> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
>> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
>> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
>> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
>> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
>> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
>> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
>> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
>> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
>> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
>> from a CS standpoint?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>     
>>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>>
>>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad
>>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>>> process by
>>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>>> principle.
>>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>>> governments
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Are we, really?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>>> forum
>>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. To do
>>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>>> process.
>>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  
>>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the 
>>>> mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's 
>>>> not a format I am happy with.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>       
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 14:19:00 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:19:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A255CDF.4050801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E69AA2E9047C4042929A00FA12B4D7CE@userPC>

Hi Ginger,

That is a very interesting challenge and I've just been reflecting on
it...and why I'm finding it so difficult to respond directly...

I think the reason is that in order to respond I/we need to reflect on and
recognize the limits (and costs) of "multi-stakeholderism"... The kind of
critical voices that I've been pointing to are precisely those that have not
been included as "stakeholders" in these overall IG discussions and notably
were not included in the "official" WSIS discussions.

But then reflecting on the "official" WSIS discussions and the process of
stakeholder inclusion, one thing that I think is extremely notable (a Ph.D.
topic for a very brave soul), is that contrary to most such UN thematic
conferences, at WSIS I&II there was no contra-conference... 

The other UN Conferences were as notable for the counter conference staged
by Civil Society as by the official conference and the most useful long term
outcomes (and certainly long term energies) from these other conferences
arguably was the result of the creative dialogue/tension between the "ins"
and the "outs"--between the officials and the critics... Between governments
and civil society!

With WSIS, apart from a brief flurry of activity around some localized human
rights issues in Tunis, there was a notable lack of (creative) tension at
these events and effectively no "counter" conference either physically on
site or virtually in cyberspace. The potentially "critical" voices were
either completely uninvolved (the new media/ICT/social networking/ culture
folks), or absorbed as footnotes in the larger national or NGO initiatives
(indigenous peoples, the grassroots folks, disability advocates etc.). And
this process has continued with the IGF (and the narrowing of the band of
issues under discussion) with even the "footnotes" being disengaged through
lack of interest/attention/funding and IG related civil society being
evidently quite content with this outcome.

So from this perspective I don't see what proposal might be presented that
would deal with what I see as being in fact a systemic rather than an
operational issue...

But as a bit of a suggestion (only slightly tongue in cheek), the IGF could
do rather worse than taking a look at
http://intercontinentalcry.org/continental-indigenous-summit-focused-on-unit
y/ and inviting some of these folks to participate and present what their
take might be on "Global Internet Governance".

MBG

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
Training Vancouver, CANADA http://www.communityinformatics.net
CA tel. +1-604-602-0624






-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]


Exactly. That is why a discussion forum like the IGF is precisely the 
place to hear these unheard or rarely heard voices. Do you have a 
suggestion on how to improve the wording of the proposal?

Thanks!



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...
>
> But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical
> one of lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.
>
> The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might
> have to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions 
> concerning IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological 
> means.
>
> Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices
> around what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the 
> Internet (q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open 
> governance), questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of 
> Internet governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and 
> disempower/limit access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique 
> of IG issues coming from indigenous communities), mechanisms for 
> opening up IG to effective interaction with various groups with 
> special needs (q.v. the contrast between the lobbying effectiveness of 
> the evidently very well resourced "youth at risk" lobby with the 
> seemingly much greater difficulty with intervention from the various 
> disability groups etc.etc.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments
> joining
> us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
> is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard
> voices?
> Can we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
>
> William Drake wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
>> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
>> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
>> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
>> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the 
>> purported need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given 
>> all the views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't 
>> suspect we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask 
>> whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement, 
>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement." In 
>> short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
>> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
>> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
>> from a CS standpoint?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>     
>>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are 
>>> just talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the 
>>> big picture. If the government thought is that the other 
>>> stakeholders
>>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>>
>>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by
>>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>>> principle.
>>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>>> governments
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Are we, really?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>>> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. To do so, governments must be motivated to 
>>>>> participate fully in the IGF process.
>>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point? 
>>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at 
>>>> the mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  
>>>> It's not a format I am happy with.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>       
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  2 17:52:45 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:52:45 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a
much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
³multistakeholder management², in line with the multistakeholder principle
which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
arrangements.
 
We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
facts in mind.   





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/94f98850/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 02:27:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:27:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906022327w4b52d20dvf416dacd67fcdab6@mail.gmail.com>

drop "root servers", and I'm fine with it.  ICANN doesn't have reg
auth over the rootops/servers, does it?

rgds,

McTim

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jun  3 05:24:49 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:24:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they  
require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles  
that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to  
take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced  
and accommodative of the various views expressed.

Why are we tossing the work that was done?

Best,

Bill

On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path  
> forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles.  
> So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24  
> hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone  
> else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points,  
> but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to  
> agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main  
> points we want to make.
>
> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as  
> to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people  
> make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area.  
> For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>
> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this  
> approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil  
> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively  
> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed  
> during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society  
> (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy,  
> action, and for representation of civil society contributions in   
> Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with  
> a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition  
> can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with  
> ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS  
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out  
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a  
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non- 
> discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for  
> high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to  
> ensure Internet stability and security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that  
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s  
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by  
> ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar  
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The  
> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they  
> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The  
> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil  
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate  
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,  
> democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with  
> “multistakeholder management”, in line with the multistakeholder  
> principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information  
> Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US  
> Government has supported, and which is  an important facet, we  
> believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution  
> of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly  
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with  
> regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and  
> over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses).  
> The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply  
> to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/3c6d1f59/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  Wed Jun  3 05:59:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:59:48 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <C64C86B4.2A6A%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Bill, read all the comments ­ carefully. From my reading there is very
little left if we take into account all comments received critical of
various sections. I cannot find consensus text on either models or JPA, not
acceptance of text which tries to accommodate differing beliefs. This leads
me to believe that simpler and shorter is better.

I am very happy for someone else to advance a draft of course!


Ian

On 3/06/09 7:24 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> 
> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
> various views expressed.
> 
> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a
>> much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what
>> I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I
>> would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>> the main points we want to make.
>>  
>>  I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>  
>>  My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>  
>>  Ian Peter
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>   
>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>  
>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
>> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
>> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
>> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
>> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>>  
>>  Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
>> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
>> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
>> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
>> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The
>> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>   
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>> interests and Internet users
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      transparency
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>  
>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>> ³multistakeholder management², in line with the multistakeholder principle
>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
>> which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
>> arrangements.
>>   
>>  We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
>> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights,
>> and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in
>> mind.   
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>   
>>   ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>>  
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
>> ***********************************************************
>>  
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/af98dfc1/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  Wed Jun  3 06:16:53 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:46:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>

I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 
in the draft statement which was

" IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a 
widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a 
barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As 
such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation 
necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global 
co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a 
situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable 
arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA 
should be ended as soon as is practical.

Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective 
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN 
develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term 
extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that 
ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if this 
extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended 
if necessary) annually."

I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut 
and the following sentence be added in the end.

""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be 
replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework 
for accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.


Parminder


William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they 
> require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles 
> that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to 
> take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced 
> and accommodative of the various views expressed.  
>
> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path 
>> forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. 
>> So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 
>> hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone 
>> else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but 
>> I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on 
>> at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we 
>> want to make.
>>
>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as 
>> to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people 
>> make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For 
>> IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>
>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this 
>> approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
>> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved 
>> the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the 
>> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our 
>> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and 
>> for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet 
>> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide 
>> spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be 
>> found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org>.
>>  
>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
>> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>
>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and 
>> non-discriminatory Information Society". We also recognise the need 
>> for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to 
>> ensure Internet stability and security.
>>
>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
>> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
>> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by 
>> ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
>> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The 
>> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot 
>> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles 
>> which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>  
>> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>
>>
>> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
>> society interests and Internet users
>>
>>
>> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>
>>
>> ·      transparency
>>
>>
>> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>
>>
>> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate 
>> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, 
>> and transparent
>>
>>
>> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>
>> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
>> "multistakeholder management", in line with the multistakeholder 
>> principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information 
>> Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US 
>> Government has supported, and which is  an important facet, we 
>> believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>>  
>> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution 
>> of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly 
>> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with 
>> regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and 
>> over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). 
>> The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply 
>> to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.   
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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>
> ***********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/e900d04e/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  Wed Jun  3 07:02:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:02:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.

Eg...

Jeanette -


³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²

Milton -

³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t do a worse job of misreading the
atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
future of the IANA contract, not JPA.²
 


So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
statement



 


On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
> draft statement which was
> 
> " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
> have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe
> the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
> 
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
> 
> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
> the following sentence be added in the end.
> 
> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
> 
> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
> 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Ian, 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>> various views expressed.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Bill
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>  
>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>  
>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>  
>>> Ian Peter
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>  
>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>  
>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>> security. 
>>>  
>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
>>> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
>>> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
>>> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
>>> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>>  
>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>> interests and Internet users
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      transparency
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>  
>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line with the multistakeholder principle
>>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
>>> which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
>>> arrangements.
>>>  
>>> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
>>> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>> facts in mind. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>>>   
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>  
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ***********************************************************
>>>  
>>> William J. Drake
>>>  
>>> Senior Associate
>>>  
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>  
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>  
>>>   Development Studies
>>>  
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>  
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>  
>>>  
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> <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/20090603/4b338840/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 07:09:36 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:09:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A2659F0.8050502@wzb.eu>

Hi, I suggested to skip the first paragraph and I supported the change 
that Bill suggested for the following para. However, I don't want to 
block consensus. Should I be the only one who dislikes the wording of 
the first para, please feel free to ignore my comment.

jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first 
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
> 
> Eg...
> 
> Jeanette -
> 
> 
> “from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.”
> 
> Milton -
> 
> “I’m in DC right now, and you couldn’t do a worse job of misreading the 
> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN 
> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the 
> future of the IANA contract, not JPA.”
>  
> 
> 
> So I don’t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus 
> statement
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>     I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question
>     6 in the draft statement which was
> 
>     " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a
>     widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is
>     actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet
>     governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global
>     co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the
>     Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition
>     beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
>     have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of
>     us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
> 
>     Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an
>     ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be
>     resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe
>     that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective
>     means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We
>     believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future
>     be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
> 
>     I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be
>     cut and the following sentence be added in the end.
> 
>     ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but
>     be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder
>     framework for accountability, the development of which should
>     commence in early 2010."
> 
>     With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC
>     statement.
> 
> 
>     Parminder
> 
> 
>     William Drake wrote:
> 
>         Hi Ian,
> 
>          
>          
>         Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think
>         they require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic
>         principles that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior
>         text, if amended to take on board some tweaks that were
>         suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>         various views expressed.  
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Best,
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Bill
>          
> 
>          
>          
>          
>          
>         On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>          
>          
> 
> 
>              Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only
>             path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates
>             on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a
>             consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be
>             happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
>             draft covering additional points, but I have come to the
>             conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this
>             stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we
>             want to make.
>              
>             I have dropped all references to models and the varying
>             arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do
>             suggest that people make individual submissions to cover
>             their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we
>             have to aim for something much simpler.
>              
>             My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think
>             of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements
>             in wording.
>              
>             Ian Peter
>              
>              
>              
>              The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of
>             civil society and non governmental organisations and
>             individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance
>             Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World
>             Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to
>             provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
>             representation of civil society contributions in  Internet
>             governance processes. We have several hundred members, with
>             a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our
>             coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org
>             <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>              
>             We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA
>             with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>              
>             In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of
>             the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet
>             governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles,
>             is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive,
>             development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information
>             Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of
>             global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure
>             Internet stability and security.
>              
>             Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>             that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded
>             in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by
>             an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution,
>             by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
>             principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded
>             in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to
>             exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to
>             be permanently embedded are:
>              
>              ·      bottom up co-ordination
>              
> 
>              ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including
>             civil society interests and Internet users
>              
> 
>              ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>              
> 
>              ·      transparency
>              
> 
>              ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>              
> 
>              ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>             governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,
>             democratic, and transparent
>              
> 
>              ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>              
>             We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>             “multistakeholder management”, in line with the
>             multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World
>             Summit on the Information Society and the Internet
>             Governance Forum process which the US Government has
>             supported, and which is  an important facet, we believe, of
>             effective internet governance  arrangements.
>              
>             We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the
>             evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This
>             should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global
>             governance institution with regulatory authority over an
>             industry (domain name registration) and over critical
>             resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The
>             standards of due process, rights, and accountability that
>             apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.   
>              
>              
> 
> 
>              
> 
>              
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>                 governance at lists.cpsr.org
>             To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>                 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>              
>             For all list information and functions, see:
>                 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>              
>             ***********************************************************
>              
>             William J. Drake  
>              
>             Senior Associate
>              
>             Centre for International Governance
>              
>             Graduate Institute of International and
>              
>               Development Studies
>              
>             Geneva, Switzerland
>              
>             william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>              
>              
>             www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>             <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
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 07:50:20 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:50:20 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>

Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set 
of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an 
obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".

My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end 
to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate 
the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular 
the IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC) 
and the process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would 
constitute a multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course) 
to prepare this formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any 
golden rule or special privileges on it.

We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group 
should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could 
try. In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five 
private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to 
mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical) 
who would act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN 
Board -- striving for balanced representation in regional and interest 
group terms.

If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended 
or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be 
regarded as that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama 
administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian 
suggests.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
> 
> Eg...
> 
> Jeanette -
> 
> 
> ³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²
> 
> Milton -
> 
> ³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t do a worse job of misreading the
> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
> future of the IANA contract, not JPA.²
>  
> 
> 
> So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
> statement
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
>> draft statement which was
>>
>> " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
>> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
>> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
>> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
>> have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe
>> the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>>
>> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
>> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
>> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
>> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
>> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
>>
>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>
>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>
>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>
>>
>> Parminder 
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Ian, 
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>>> various views expressed.
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Bill
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>  
>>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>  
>>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>  
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>>>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>  
>>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>  
>>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>> security. 
>>>>  
>>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
>>>> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
>>>> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
>>>> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
>>>> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>>> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>>>  
>>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      transparency
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>  
>>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line with the multistakeholder principle
>>>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>>>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
>>>> which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
>>>> arrangements.
>>>>  
>>>> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>>> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>>> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
>>>> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>>> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>>> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>>> facts in mind. 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>  
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>  
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>  
>>>> Senior Associate
>>>>  
>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>>  
>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>  
>>>>   Development Studies
>>>>  
>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>  
>>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>> <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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 08:08:49 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:38:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906030508h5a128939nec6c557d7d6550c0@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,

I would rather agree with William Drake's view that the draft should not be
tossed at this stage. What is missing is a powerful statement from IGC that
the JPA should not continue. What is also missing is the assertion that
ICANN as an organization has the capability to be independant. The draft
could be modified with the missing positve statements and could go as the
IGC input.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set of
> chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an
> obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end to
> the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate the
> termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular the
> IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC) and the
> process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would constitute a
> multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this
> formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or
> special privileges on it.
>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group
> should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could try.
> In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five private
> sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to mind
> immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical) who would
> act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN Board -- striving
> for balanced representation in regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended or
> continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be regarded as
> that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama
> administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian
> suggests.
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
>> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>>
>> Eg...
>>
>> Jeanette -
>>
>>
>> łfrom what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
>> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
>> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
>> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.˛
>>
>> Milton -
>>
>> łIąm in DC right now, and you couldnąt do a worse job of misreading the
>> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
>> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
>> future of the IANA contract, not JPA.˛
>>
>>
>> So I donąt think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
>>
>> statement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>  I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in
>>> the
>>> draft statement which was
>>>
>>> " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a
>>> widespread
>>> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
>>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen
>>> as
>>> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the
>>> security
>>> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>>> they
>>> have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us
>>> believe
>>> the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>>>
>>> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
>>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN
>>> develops.
>>> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the
>>> JPA
>>> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
>>> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
>>> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
>>>
>>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut
>>> and
>>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>>
>>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be
>>> replaced
>>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>>
>>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>   Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they
>>>> require
>>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that
>>>> already
>>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board
>>>> some
>>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of
>>>> the
>>>> various views expressed.
>>>>
>>>>   Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>>
>>>>   Best,
>>>>
>>>>   Bill
>>>>
>>>>     On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path
>>>>> forward is
>>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this
>>>>> stage
>>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what
>>>>> follows.
>>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
>>>>> draft
>>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that
>>>>> anything
>>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away
>>>>> from
>>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>>  I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as
>>>>> to
>>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as
>>>>> a
>>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>>  My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this
>>>>> approach,
>>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>>  Ian Peter
>>>>>     The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil
>>>>> society and
>>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the
>>>>> UNąs
>>>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to
>>>>> the
>>>>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to
>>>>> provide a
>>>>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>>>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have
>>>>> several
>>>>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
>>>>> about
>>>>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN,
>>>>> and
>>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>>> Information Society˛. We also recognise the need for high levels of
>>>>> global
>>>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability
>>>>> and
>>>>> security.  Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>>>>> that certain
>>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANNąs operation. We
>>>>>
>>>>> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to
>>>>> perpetuate in
>>>>> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
>>>>> various
>>>>> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a
>>>>> way as
>>>>> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder
>>>>> group.
>>>>> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>>>>   ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>>     ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil
>>>>> society
>>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>>     ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>>     ·      transparency
>>>>>     ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>>     ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>>>>> governance
>>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and
>>>>> transparent
>>>>>     ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>>   We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>>> łmultistakeholder management˛, in line with the multistakeholder
>>>>> principle
>>>>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and
>>>>> the
>>>>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has
>>>>> supported, and
>>>>> which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
>>>>> governance
>>>>> arrangements.
>>>>>  We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution
>>>>> of a
>>>>> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly
>>>>> recognize
>>>>> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
>>>>> over
>>>>> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>>>> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>>>> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with
>>>>> these
>>>>> facts in mind.
>>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>>>>         ***********************************************************
>>>>>  William J. Drake
>>>>>  Senior Associate
>>>>>  Centre for International Governance
>>>>>  Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>>    Development Studies
>>>>>  Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>>  william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>>>   www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>>> <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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090603/2bd7e55a/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  Wed Jun  3 08:42:36 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
Message-ID: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Hi all,

A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.

Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?

Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.

Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.

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



      Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 08:56:57 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:56:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the  
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the  
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of  
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess  
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate  
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to  
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings  
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file  
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization  
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group  
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no  
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special  
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield  
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in  
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an  
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence  
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne  
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in  
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a  
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's  
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather  
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for  
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much  
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll  
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it  
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings  
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist  
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but  
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five  
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,  
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists  
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from  
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in  
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be  
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk  
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right  
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole  
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN  
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to  
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's  
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass  
here...

Cheers,

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

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


From anriette at apc.org  Wed Jun  3 09:28:36 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:28:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1244035716.4118.124.camel@anriette-laptop>

Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
has valuable information
http://southasia.oneworld.net/
http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
http://www.itforchange.net/
http://www.i4donline.ne
http://defindia.net/
http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 09:57:22 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:57:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

I agree with Bill that we are at point where 'immediate' ends and 'immediate' transitions to some other internationalized state of conditions needs to be defined more precisely.

 It will take years to reach some level of multistakeholder consensus on what is next.

Carlos, starting with negotiation of a transition agreement I fear would just add another layer of negotiations onto what is after all going to be a laborious process.  

So with that in mind,

- will end of JPA in 2009 help or hurt in defining where transition is going to?
(given continued IANA contract etc, and open discussions on within what broader context should ICANN exist)
Pro: a sign of movement
Con: unclear where we are going

I'll admit I have gone back and forth myself between thinking the JPA should just be allowed to expire, thereby forcing all parties to deal with new reality, versus a more measured process whereby the USG lets go when it knows what it is letting go to.

Realistically, USG won't/can't do otherwise, one way or another, than hold on til it thinks it safe to let go.  

So for myself I'm betting on a new and improved JPA or  maybe let's go back to an MOU for the next X years.... ; ) 

Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for participation in a transition process, with of course USG noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?

Lee


________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
here...

Cheers,

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

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

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


From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 10:24:17 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
Message-ID: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Hi Anriette 
Thank you very much for the very interesting list and if you fined more please let us know.
Best 
Dina


--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:28 AM

Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
has valuable information
http://southasia.oneworld.net/
http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
http://www.itforchange.net/
http://www.i4donline.ne
http://defindia.net/
http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

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

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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/6857bbac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 10:27:52 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:27:52 +0700
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906030727p3f5f5474nea52a9ae1e6bfdd1@mail.gmail.com>

Here are a few worthy resources:

BytesForAll South Asia Network:
About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll
Live List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers
Website: http://www.bytesforall.net/

Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor Forum:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/

Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor
Website: http://pakistanictpolicy.bytesforall.net/

AskBajwa.com
http://www.askbajwa.com

Bangladesh ICT Policy Monitor:
http://bangladeshictpolicy.bytesforall.net/

ICT Infrastructure in emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks
The book can be downloaded free at: http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/378-2


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Dina <dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Anriette
> Thank you very much for the very interesting list and if you fined more
> please let us know.
> Best
> Dina
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:28 AM
>
> Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
> might have good suggestions)
>
> Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
> this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
> available already.
>
> He can start by looking at:
>
> http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
> has valuable information
> http://southasia.oneworld.net/
> http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
> http://www.itforchange.net/
> http://www.i4donline.ne
> http://defindia.net/
> http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
> http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm
>
> But there is probably a lot more information out there.
>
> We would be interested to know more about this initiative.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some
>> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health,
>> rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic
>> issues.
>>
>> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and
>> information?
>>
>> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in
>> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>>
>> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any
>> questions, please let me know.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
>> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists..cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> --
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> anriette esterhuysen - executive director
> association for progressive communications
> p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
> anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
> http://www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 10:30:17 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:30:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <1244035716.4118.124.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <BB19C06050694322956BF33593D3BA30@userPC>


David, 

Further to what Anriette has said could I suggest that you look to sub-divide the project... India alone could well occupy you for your entire effort and there are significant initiatives underway in virtually all of the countries in all parts of Asia... For India, (and South Asia) a hugely valuable resource is the bytesforall email list <bytesforall at yahoogroups.com> ... 

To get into the details on a country by country basis may require access to local languages but I can give you some names off-list that could help in some of the specific countries...

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:29 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources


Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still has valuable information http://southasia.oneworld.net/ http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/ http://www.itforchange.net/ http://www.i4donline.ne http://defindia.net/ http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some 
> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at 
> health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and 
> socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas 
> and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in 
> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any 
> questions, please let me know.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter 
> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 10:47:30 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:47:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD
In-Reply-To: <p06240834c645a5c485fe@[221.115.9.43]>
References: <C645DB85.2748%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <3DF7CA17-C844-4D1C-A593-AC4D567E35AE@graduateinstitute.ch> <p06240834c645a5c485fe@[221.115.9.43]>
Message-ID: <83BA4ED8-692F-44CB-A981-8E00959E85EA@graduateinstitute.ch>

Adam,

On May 29, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> At 2:39 PM +0200 5/29/09, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> Among whom would the binding conditions be agreed?  In what form?  
>> How would their implementation be monitored and assessed?  What  
>> consequences would flow from failure to implement?  And so  
>> on...we're not going to get consensus on a statement that's based  
>> on abstractions and leaps of faith.  What's really needed is some  
>> serious brainstorming on 3.0 architectural options that are  
>> responsive to what goes on within the organization and to the  
>> growing intergovernmental machinations outside of it (witness this  
>> week's CSTD meeting etc).
>
>
> What machinations were these?  Could you summarize?

I never responded to you as Anriette promptly sent an update on CSTD,  
but there was a lot of maneuvering among the usual governments to  
establish that enhanced cooperation is a preeminently if not entirely  
intergovernmental affair, in which the ITU is playing a lead role; and  
to downplay if not diss the contributions of the IGF and the arguments  
for its extension.  Anriette, Guru and Bertrand sat through more of  
these sessions than I and could provide more detail.

I just received from the secretariat the final resolution (well, it's  
a 'draft' until adopted by ECOSOC I guess) on "Assessment of the  
progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes  
of the World Summit on the Information Society."  Not as bad as it  
could have been, thanks to friendlies and fellow travelers who pushed  
back.  A few highlights:

ECOSOC

14.  Reaffirms the principles enunciated in the WSIS that the Internet  
has evolved into a global facility available to the public and its  
governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society  
agenda. The international management of the Internet should be  
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of  
governments, the private sector, civil society and international  
organizations. It 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;

15. Notes the discussions in the IGF as a multi-stakeholder platform  
on public policy issues related to internet governance which were  
observed by the UN SG in his report, expresses appreciation for the  
work done by the Chair, the Secretariat and the host Governments of  
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and looks forward to the  
convening of the fourth meeting of the IGF in Egypt; [no positive  
adjectives but no negatives either]

16. Encourages all stakeholders to contribute to the online  
consultations regarding the “desirability of the continuation” of the  
IGF as envisaged in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda and to give  
consideration of the stakeholders in under-developed areas that could  
not get connected online and urge the UNSG to take all appropriate  
measures to consult the stakeholders at a broad basis;

17. Notes that paragraph 80 of the Tunis Agenda refers to development  
of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional and  
international levels; [good this was inserted]

18. Recognizes the contribution of WTSA08 towards enhanced  
cooperation; [ ITU gets only the specific mention as contributing to EC]

19.  Notes the conclusion of the UNSG on the basis of performance  
reports from 10 organizations relevant to Internet Governance, that  
while the efforts made varied in nature between the different  
organizations, the performance reports suggest that the Tunis Agenda's  
call for enhanced cooperation has been taken seriously by these  
organizations, and requests the Secretary General to report to ECOSOC  
through CSTD on the progress towards enhanced cooperation;  [since  
these included non-intergovernmentals, the EC as exclusively  
intergovernmental premise looks even more odd]

36. Encourages the WSIS action line facilitators to increase their  
efforts to include all stakeholders in the facilitation process on  
implementing the WSIS action lines and to further enhance the  
interactivity of the process;

Anyway, thought I'd share this FYI.

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:51:22 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:51:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Ian, 
I missed a day of comment and am not understanding how we went from a good statement with some debate on the margins to the meaningless stuff you have below. 
I can assure you that a statement as proposed below would have utterly no impact on the discussion in Washington. I'd recommend reverting back a step to the document and working out those minor differences. 
________________________________________
From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with “multistakeholder management”, in line with the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.

We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.






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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:54:55 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:54:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Agreed. The Caucus has to make meaningful statements about the JPA otherwise you may as well not bother. 
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:16 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Cc: Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the draft statement which was

" IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."

I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and the following sentence be added in the end.

""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.


Parminder


William Drake wrote:
Hi Ian,

Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the various views expressed.

Why are we tossing the work that was done?

Best,

Bill

On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with “multistakeholder management”, in line with the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.

We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.






____________________________________________________________
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

***********************************************************
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 mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:59:14 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:59:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Come to think of it, who actually does believe that the JPA should be extended? 
Of those who do, they dont support US oversight or even the JPA itself, they just want to use it as leverage to pressure ICANN to make certain reforms. 
________________________________________
From: Carlos Afonso [ca at rits.org.br]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:50 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set
of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an
obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".

My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end
to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate
the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular
the IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC)
and the process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would
constitute a multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course)
to prepare this formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any
golden rule or special privileges on it.

We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group
should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could
try. In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five
private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to
mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical)
who would act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN
Board -- striving for balanced representation in regional and interest
group terms.

If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended
or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be
regarded as that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama
administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian
suggests.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>
> Eg...
>
> Jeanette -
>
>
> ³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²
>
> Milton -
>
> ³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t do a worse job of misreading the
> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
> future of the IANA contract, not JPA.²
>
>
>
> So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
> statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
>> draft statement which was
>>
>> " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
>> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
>> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
>> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
>> have equitable arrangements for  participation.  Therefore, all of us believe
>> the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>>
>> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
>> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
>> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
>> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
>> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
>>
>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>
>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>
>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>>> various views expressed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>
>>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>
>>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>>> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>>>> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>
>>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>
>>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>> security.
>>>>
>>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
>>>> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
>>>> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
>>>> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
>>>> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>>> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>>>
>>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      transparency
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>
>>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line with the multistakeholder principle
>>>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
>>>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
>>>> which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
>>>> arrangements.
>>>>
>>>> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>>> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>>> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
>>>> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>>> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>>> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>>> facts in mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>
>>>> Senior Associate
>>>>
>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>>
>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>
>>>>   Development Studies
>>>>
>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>> <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
>
>

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:03:21 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:03:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10)
Message-ID: <12981B10C19849D8B89C247FC4834AF6@userPC>

In case you missed it...
 
M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Plaxo Birthday Reminder [mailto:noreply at plaxo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:37 AM
To: Gurstein, Michael
Subject: PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10)



			

		
	
	PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10) 
 
<https://www.plaxo.com/display_entry?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&t=bre
minder> View more info |
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=6&s=0> Snooze
reminder |
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=1&s=0> Turn
off reminder 		
 plaxo eCards <http://www.plaxo.com/images/bday_aim/ecards.gif>


	
 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=18&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Send an eCard	
  <http://www.plaxo.com/images/bday_i18n/dancers.gif> 		

	

 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=10&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Flowers
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=11&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C110> Spanish eCard
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=10&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C104> Portuguese eCard	

 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=13&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C112> Dutch eCard
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=14&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C139> Italian eCard	
 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=16&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Choose fonts, colors and
frames!	 	

		Select a card now! We'll deliver it on PrepcomII's birthday.
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=17&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Add your own photo!-Create
Your Own	 	
			
	
	You are receiving this birthday reminder as part of your Plaxo
membership
registered under the email address: gurstein at gmail.com.
Learn more about  <http://www.plaxo.com/support/birthday_reminder> Plaxo
Birthday Reminders | Turn
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=1&s=0> off
birthday reminders for PrepcomII SMSI 		
	
Plaxo, Inc. - 203 Ravendale Drive - Mountain View - CA - 94043 - USA
	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/06fff776/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 11:00:49 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:00:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


Bill
JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability. 
JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community. 
There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever. 

________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
here...

Cheers,

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:32:23 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:32:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  Bill
>  JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability.
>  JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community.

then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and
ending his "hostage" drama?

>  There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.

and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an extension.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 11:36:24 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:36:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>

The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The point 
is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before the 
JPA ends.

jeanette

McTim wrote:
> On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>  Bill
>>  JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability.
>>  JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community.
> 
> then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and
> ending his "hostage" drama?
> 
>>  There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.
> 
> and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an extension.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:37:27 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:37:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A2698B7.4070708@rits.org.br>

:)

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Ian, I missed a day of comment and am not understanding how we went
> from a good statement with some debate on the margins to the
> meaningless stuff you have below.


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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:36:42 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:36:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>

Dear Lee,

Lee W McKnight wrote:
[...]
> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
> 
> Lee


I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...

frt rgds

--c.a.

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:40:31 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:40:31 +0300
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906030840q412c70c7y315b69635ab24afa@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

You might find this useful in some way:

Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Compendium of Approaches
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/di_wp36.htm
Richard Heeks & Alemayehu Molla

Abstract

Billions of US dollars are invested each year by the public, NGO and
private sectors in
information-and-communication-technologies-for-development (ICT4D)
projects such as telecentres, village phone schemes, e-health and
e-education projects, e-government kiosks, etc.

Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects.

In part that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in
part it also reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake
impact assessment of ICT4D.

This Compendium aims to address that lack of knowledge.  It presents a
set of frameworks that can be used by ICT4D practitioners,
policy-makers and consultants to understand the impact of informatics
initiatives in developing countries.

The Compendium is arranged into three parts:

    * Overview – explains the basis for understanding impact
assessment of ICT4D projects, and the different assessment frameworks
that can be used.
    * Frameworks – summarises a series of impact assessment
frameworks, each one drawing from a different perspective.
    * Bibliography – a tabular summary of real-world examples of ICT4D
impact assessment.

On 6/3/09, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
>
>  Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
>
>  Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>
>  Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
>
>  Cheers
>  David
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:39:08 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:39:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26991C.2010803@rits.org.br>

I agree, MM.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Bill
> JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability. 
> JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community. 
> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever. 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
>> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
>> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
>> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
>> that "barrier".
> 
> Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
> let's not confuse the narrative...
>> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
>> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
>> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
>> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
>> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
>> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
>> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
>> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
>> privileges on it.
> 
> So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
> immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
> the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
> accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
> and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
> and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
> which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
> recipe for some very serious conflict.
> 
> The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
> phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
> than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
> success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
> longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.
> 
> That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
> get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
> happens, you effectively asked for it :-)
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
> tomorrow....
> 
>> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
>> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
>> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
>> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
>> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
>> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
>> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
>> regional and interest group terms.
>>
>> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
>> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
>> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
>> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
>> thing out as Ian suggests.
> 
> So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
> run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
> live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
> something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
> here...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 12:01:08 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:01:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>

MM,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> Bill
> JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us  
> any accountability.

If you read back through the thread you'll know that I've agree with  
you that it hasn't, but pointed out that it in principle at least  
provides a channel through which one could attempt to apply pressure.   
And that rather few public interest actors have tried to use it that  
way.
>
> JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to  
> institute reforms demanded by the community.

Right, it can in principle be leveraged to demand, uh, accountability.

But anyway that's not the main point some of us have been making.   
We've been talking about how and when to launch a process on  
accountability mechs to replace it, the linkage and timing is the focus.
>
> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual  
> property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.

Sure, for very different reasons.   There are also firms who want to  
end it immediately cuz that fits their agendas, that doesn't mean that  
CS people who advocate immediate cessation are aligned with them, or  
board/staff/etc. either.

Last week you expressed reservations about ending with no strings and  
agreed process on alternative mechanisms, are you now shifting because  
of what you're hearing in DC?

BD
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
>> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
>> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
>> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
>> that "barrier".
>
> Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
> let's not confuse the narrative...
>>
>> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
>> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
>> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
>> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
>> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
>> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
>> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
>> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
>> privileges on it.
>
> So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
> immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
> the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
> accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
> and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
> and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
> which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
> recipe for some very serious conflict.
>
> The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
> phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
> than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
> success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
> longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.
>
> That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
> get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
> happens, you effectively asked for it :-)
>
> Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
> tomorrow....
>
>>
>> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
>> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
>> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
>> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
>> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
>> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
>> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
>> regional and interest group terms.
>>
>> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
>> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
>> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
>> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
>> thing out as Ian suggests.
>
> So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
> run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
> live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
> something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
> here...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

***********************************************************
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 garth.graham at telus.net  Wed Jun  3 12:29:50 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:29:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D6F62C1B-81A1-4441-96AE-C5BC326CE5B8@telus.net>

On 3-Jun-09, at 7:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I .... am not understanding how we went from a good statement with  
> some debate on the margins to the meaningless stuff you have below.

We got there through a reasonable synthesis of what many people  
actually said, and through effective application of a consensus  
process - good qualities in a coordinator.

And it is not "meaningless" to re-iterate the principles "we" would  
apply in assessing the future status of ICANN's roles or any  
statements about intentions.  If fact, such principles can serve  
quite well as a standard of measurement to be used in calling upon  
ICANN, and the agencies setting the context in which it operates, to  
account for their actions.

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

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


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Wed Jun  3 12:34:04 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:34:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <f65fb55e0906030840q412c70c7y315b69635ab24afa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EA09C65D526A4EB8AE61BD6F1637843A@PCbureau>

Dear all

McTim wrote :
<Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put 
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects. In part 
that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in part it also 
reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake impact assessment of 
ICT4D.>

In my humble opinion this also reflects that a significant part of these 
ICT4D projects are designed and carried out without sufficient dialogue with 
the people and their representative orgs. Only a true exchange with them 
upon their needs and their views on how they could evolve on one hand, and 
the the possibilities of suitable and adequately dimensioned technologies on 
the other hand, can fulfil the conditions for a people centered and 
therefore useful development. Remember : ICT isn't THE goal : it is only A 
tool !

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "David Goldstein" 
<goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources



Hi,

You might find this useful in some way:

Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Compendium of 
Approaches
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/di_wp36.htm
Richard Heeks & Alemayehu Molla

Abstract

Billions of US dollars are invested each year by the public, NGO and
private sectors in
information-and-communication-technologies-for-development (ICT4D)
projects such as telecentres, village phone schemes, e-health and
e-education projects, e-government kiosks, etc.

Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects.

In part that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in
part it also reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake
impact assessment of ICT4D.

This Compendium aims to address that lack of knowledge.  It presents a
set of frameworks that can be used by ICT4D practitioners,
policy-makers and consultants to understand the impact of informatics
initiatives in developing countries.

The Compendium is arranged into three parts:

    * Overview – explains the basis for understanding impact
assessment of ICT4D projects, and the different assessment frameworks
that can be used.
    * Frameworks – summarises a series of impact assessment
frameworks, each one drawing from a different perspective.
    * Bibliography – a tabular summary of real-world examples of ICT4D
impact assessment.

On 6/3/09, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some 
> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at 
> health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and 
> socio-economic issues.
>
>  Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and 
> information?
>
>  Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in 
> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>
>  Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any 
> questions, please let me know.
>
>  Cheers
>  David
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 13:21:58 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:21:58 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A26B136.8070804@rits.org.br>



McTim wrote:
> On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Bill JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not
>> lose us any accountability. JPA is significant only insofar as
>> ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the
>> community.
> 
> then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and 
> ending his "hostage" drama?

I am! :)

> 
>> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual
>> property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.
> 
> and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an
> extension.
> 

Possibly, but my understanding is that "they" do not want it anymore as
well. Some of us are behind "them" in this regard.

--c.a.

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 14:30:12 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:30:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 

> Last week you expressed reservations about ending with no 
> strings and agreed process on alternative mechanisms, are you now 
> shifting because of what you're hearing in DC?
> 

To simplify, yes. In the current political context, any talk of extending JPA to "increase accountability" plays into the hands of US-based business interests and US nationalists. There will always be some interest group that is not satisfied with ICANN. If all of them (irrationally) view the JPA as leverage to achieve their specific goals, we will never get out of it. Yet that is the game everyone seems to be playing. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 14:32:38 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:32:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place before the JPA ends (in three months!). 
If you want the US not to let go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
> 
> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. 
> The point 
> is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place 
> before the 
> JPA ends.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 14:47:26 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:47:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com> <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26C53E.6000001@rits.org.br>

Yes, Milton!

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place before the JPA ends (in three months!). 
> If you want the US not to let go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds. 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
>>
>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. 
>> The point 
>> is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place 
>> before the 
>> JPA ends.
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 14:57:22 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:57:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com> <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>

Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides 
another leverage that could be used to get some form of external 
accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that 
one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external 
accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on 
that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an 
extension also won't change my mind.

jeanette

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> 
>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>> the JPA ends.
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 15:22:53 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:22:53 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
- but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
express the other side!

Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
about JPA, how does this sit.

The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
lasting viable solution.
 
Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
changes.

Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)

What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
this additional text?




On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> extension also won't change my mind.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> 
>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>> the JPA ends.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 15:42:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:42:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


One additional add on to my last message - the following text -


Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
process."


So the newly included text would read

The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
lasting viable solution.
  
Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
an open, transparent and inclusive process.

What do you all think ? In or out?

Ian




On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> express the other side!
> 
> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
> about JPA, how does this sit.
> 
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>  
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
> 
> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> 
> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> this additional text?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>> extension also won't change my mind.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>> 
>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 16:48:13 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:48:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209F2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 

> The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an 
> extension also won't change my mind.
 
It should. 

Both of you can't get what you want from JPA extensions. 

The idea that the JPA should be retained until no stakeholder has any complaint about ICANN is unrealistic. Realize what kind of a game is being played here. Some of us are dissatisfied with ICANN's accountability and institutional structure; those are legitimate concerns. Others are just unhappy with policy outcomes. The JPA puts them both in the same pot and mixes them up so that they are indistinguishable. You will never get out of that game as long as ICANN is reviewed by the US and makes decisions that are controversial. 




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  3 16:50:39 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:20:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian

I am in, with the suggestion that para 2, "some of us believe this, some
that"  needs to changed something gentle such as "though there isn't an
absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in favor of ending the JPA"

I don't get the impression that there is a pro-JPA opinion in this list. My
inference is that there are some concerns about ICANN's readiness. Such
concerns could be addressed perhaps by the suggestion of a transition
arrangement - an arrangement for an interim period of a year or so, when a
joint oversight team of civil society and ten or twelve governments, perhaps
even a panel of jury together overseeing the transition to ensure that ICANN
would be efficient and fair when fully independant.

There has been enough of extensions.  US Government still hesitates to end
the JPA because “doing so would cause instability in the DNS” . and it may
really be wating for institutional confidence to improve. That is a process
that does not happen overnight, and one can eternally argue that it is not
enough.

There shouldn't be any ambiguity in the IGC statement on whether or not the
JPA should be ended  Lets say that it should be ended. And perhaps suggest a
transition period of a year, with a new transition arrangement, which is
also to be a time bound arrangement.

Para 2 as it is makes the IGC look very weak.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
> argument
> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> > express the other side!
> >
> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
> only
> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
> say
> > about JPA, how does this sit.
> >
> > The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> > transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> > they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is
> subject
> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
> a
> > lasting viable solution.
> >
> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> > changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >
> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> > this additional text?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> >> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> >>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You
> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090604/6de8b81a/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 Jun  3 16:55:17 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:25:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906031355k57016439oc1652b65b5dacd06@mail.gmail.com>

I wish to add:( on US concerns relating to DNS stability)

US Government's concerns are well founded but these concerns are global
concerns not merely American concerns. JPA is American but the Internet
happens to be global.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Ian
>
> I am in, with the suggestion that para 2, "some of us believe this, some
> that"  needs to changed something gentle such as "though there isn't an
> absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in favor of ending the JPA"
>
> I don't get the impression that there is a pro-JPA opinion in this list. My
> inference is that there are some concerns about ICANN's readiness. Such
> concerns could be addressed perhaps by the suggestion of a transition
> arrangement - an arrangement for an interim period of a year or so, when a
> joint oversight team of civil society and ten or twelve governments, perhaps
> even a panel of jury together overseeing the transition to ensure that ICANN
> would be efficient and fair when fully independant.
>
> There has been enough of extensions.  US Government still hesitates to end
> the JPA because “doing so would cause instability in the DNS” . and it may
> really be wating for institutional confidence to improve. That is a process
> that does not happen overnight, and one can eternally argue that it is not
> enough.
>
> There shouldn't be any ambiguity in the IGC statement on whether or not the
> JPA should be ended  Lets say that it should be ended. And perhaps suggest a
> transition period of a year, with a new transition arrangement, which is
> also to be a time bound arrangement.
>
> Para 2 as it is makes the IGC look very weak.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>>
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>> it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>> process."
>>
>>
>> So the newly included text would read
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
>> Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
>> a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
>> on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
>> that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>> it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
>> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>> What do you all think ? In or out?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
>> argument
>> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> > express the other side!
>> >
>> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
>> only
>> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
>> say
>> > about JPA, how does this sit.
>> >
>> > The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> > transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel
>> that
>> > they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is
>> subject
>> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
>> Therefore,
>> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is
>> not a
>> > lasting viable solution.
>> >
>> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
>> on
>> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
>> that
>> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>> >
>> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> > this additional text?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract
>> provides
>> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that
>> external
>> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>> >> extension also won't change my mind.
>> >>
>> >> jeanette
>> >>
>> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>> >>>> the JPA ends.
>> >>>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>> >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >>>
>> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >>
>> >> For all list information and functions, see:
>> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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/20090604/44a3b625/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 17:03:54 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:03:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>

Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> 
> 
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
> 
> 
> So the newly included text would read
> 
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>   
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
> 
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
> 
> What do you all think ? In or out?
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>  
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Wed Jun  3 17:44:30 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:44:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906031444m5922d64ep530d609d789d4098@mail.gmail.com>

I like this revision.

Carlton Samuels

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
> argument
> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> > express the other side!
> >
> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
> only
> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
> say
> > about JPA, how does this sit.
> >
> > The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> > transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> > they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is
> subject
> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
> a
> > lasting viable solution.
> >
> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> > changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >
> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> > this additional text?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> >> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> >>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You
> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090603/3c850b2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 17:46:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:46:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>  process."
>

that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Jun  3 17:51:37 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:51:37 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments



Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>  
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>> 
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 23:46:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:46:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
In-Reply-To: <list-17708561@execdsl.com>
References: <list-17708561@execdsl.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>

FYI,

more red meat for the IGP blog?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Jun 4, 2009 6:35 AM
Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
Cc:


Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
the root signed by the end of the year.

Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html

The text of the NIST press release is copied below.

Steve



Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 3, 2009

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.

The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
(e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
securing information provided by the DNS.

“The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
“The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
commitment.”

"NIST has been an active participant within the international
community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”

The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
communications and information policies. For more information about
the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.

As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 23:52:39 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:52:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

likewise, fine by me
________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments



Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 01:06:59 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:36:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <list-17708561@execdsl.com> <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A275673.3010101@itforchange.net>

Since every lever of security is a lever of control, would definitely 
like an IGP blog, as well as other comments here, on how root signing 
makes rest of world more vulnerable to control by US gov, if at all.
BTW, McTim, you have any views on this? How would your country and your 
people react to this new situation? Parminder

McTim wrote:
> FYI,
>
> more red meat for the IGP blog?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
> Date: Jun 4, 2009 6:35 AM
> Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
> To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
> Cc:
>
>
> Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
> of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
> the root signed by the end of the year.
>
> Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html
>
> The text of the NIST press release is copied below.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
> Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
> System
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
> June 3, 2009
>
> WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
> two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
> security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
> interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
> technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
> authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
> There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
> community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.
>
> The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
> the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
> names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
> (e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
> Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
> accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
> are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
> Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
> DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
> data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
> a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
> securing information provided by the DNS.
>
> “The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
> commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
> and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
> “The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
> security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
> commitment.”
>
> "NIST has been an active participant within the international
> community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
> various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
> said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
> Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
> deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”
>
> The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
> branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
> communications and information policies. For more information about
> the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.
>
> As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
> industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
> and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
> quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/d6c82ad4/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  Thu Jun  4 02:14:09 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>

I can go with the present text. However I will request the 
co-coordinator to give the following serious consideration.

I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA should 
end' is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 
'Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now.....'

I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like

"though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in 
favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
language)

represents the exchanges on this list much better.

In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who have 
reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on technical 
grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new 
arrangements are finalized".

This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.

Parminder


Lee W McKnight wrote:
> likewise, fine by me
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
>
>
> Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> jeanette
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>   
>> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>>
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>> process."
>>
>>
>> So the newly included text would read
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
>> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>> What do you all think ? In or out?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>>> express the other side!
>>>
>>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>>
>>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
>>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
>>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
>>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>>> lasting viable solution.
>>>
>>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>>
>>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>>> this additional text?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
>>>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>           
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090604/83f1ba22/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  Thu Jun  4 02:35:03 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>

I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

this language is even clearer and more powerful.





Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Dear Lee,
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> [...]
>   
>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>
>> Lee
>>     
>
>
> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/e87ff2c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 02:51:30 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:51:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>

Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
I definitely disagree with your version.

Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than those 
speaking up here.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> 
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Dear Lee,
>>
>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> [...]
>>   
>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>     
>>
>>
>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 03:00:51 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:30:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>

Jeanette

The remark

"I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "

was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. See 
the emails below.

When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving more 
definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am not 
trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.

As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up here' 
lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's Gurstien's pet 
theme :). You may want to see his emails.

parminder

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
> you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
> I definitely disagree with your version.
>
> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
> this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
> those speaking up here.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>
>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> Dear Lee,
>>>
>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>  
>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/4016178f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 03:41:35 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:41:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>

Parminder,

sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:

"though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in 
favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
language)

represents the exchanges on this list much better.

I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.

In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as Wolfgang 
likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right strategy is 
under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we are all 
guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other seriously 
so that we can respect when and where we come to different conclusions.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> Jeanette
> 
> The remark
> 
> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
> 
> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. See 
> the emails below.
> 
> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving more 
> definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am not 
> trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
> 
> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up here' 
> lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's Gurstien's pet 
> theme :). You may want to see his emails.
> 
> parminder
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
>> you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>
>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
>> this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>> those speaking up here.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>
>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>
>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>  
>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 04:10:50 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:40:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
> conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.

I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
it creates, and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of 
that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. However 
this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.

As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
action can be even more dangerous. (Having different views is a 
different matter altogether though). Just my view.

parminder


> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>>
>> The remark
>>
>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>> See the emails below.
>>
>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am 
>> not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>
>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your 
>>> position.
>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>>> those speaking up here.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>
>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Jun  4 04:13:35 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:13:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <DBAB2199-DFB2-4B8A-B345-4CB1E65E983D@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

Characterizing one position as majority and another as minority is not  
productive, especially when this has been mostly a discussion among  
just a handful of people.  We don't actually know what the other @ 200  
caucus members believe, and probably lots are as uncertain about the  
tactical merits of alternative time tables as those who have spoken.  
Who knows, there may be people here who'd favor extending the JPA  
without tying that to establishment of an alternative accountability  
framework, and there are undoubtedly people who are for immediate  
ICANN independence with no strings attached (e.g. McTim if I  
understand correctly).  So please let's not get into privileging one  
formulation over another.

Ian, could you resend the complete text with the compromise language  
inserted and the other tweaks suggested?

A related suggestion: before this is sent off to NTIA, how about if we  
see if the members of NCUC can quickly agree to co-sign?  A position  
statement from two CS coalitions, one of them active within ICANN,  
would seem a bit more notable, no?  While there's some overlap between  
the 50 orgs + individuals in NCUC and the IGC membership, I don't  
think that's an problem with respect to simply endorsing a statement...

Bill



On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails,  
> particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion  
> is in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to  
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing  
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as  
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right  
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals,  
> we are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each  
> other seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to  
> different conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>> The remark
>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it.  
>> See the emails below.
>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving  
>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I  
>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up  
>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's  
>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>> parminder
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some  
>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with  
>>> your position.
>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate  
>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much  
>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people  
>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>
>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until  
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe  
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a  
>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean  
>>>>> we
>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated  
>>>>> guesses on
>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations"  
>>>>> go...
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

***********************************************************
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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 04:24:50 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:24:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>



Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Parminder,
>>
>> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>>
>> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
>> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
>> Shiva's language)
>>
>> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>>
>> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
>> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>>
>> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
>> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
>> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
>> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
>> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
>> conclusions.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
> Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
> it creates, 

That is correct, yes.

and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of
> that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
> of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. 

I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I said 
at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral control 
and we want to replace it by something more international - some of us 
think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
political point, not a technical one.


However
> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
> to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
> extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
> 
> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
> at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
> action can be even more dangerous.

But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).

jeanette

  (Having different views is a
> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>> The remark
>>>
>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>
>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>> See the emails below.
>>>
>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am 
>>> not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>
>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your 
>>>> position.
>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>>>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>>>> those speaking up here.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>
>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 04:35:08 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:35:08 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular paragraphs inclusion
- many others have supported it however. Does anyone else object to this
particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?


Ian


On 4/06/09 7:46 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>> 
>> 
>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>>  process."
>> 
> 
> that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.
> 
> 


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 05:25:31 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:55:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net> <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>


>
>> that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to 
>> ending of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. 
>
> I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
> said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
> privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
> accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> political point, not a technical one.

By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.

However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.

Parminder


>
>
> However
>> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
>> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
>> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
>>
>> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
>> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
>> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
>> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
>
> But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
> should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
> openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
>
> jeanette
>
>  (Having different views is a
>> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> Jeanette
>>>>
>>>> The remark
>>>>
>>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>>
>>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>>> See the emails below.
>>>>
>>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
>>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
>>>>> your position.
>>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
>>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
>>>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
>>>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
>>>>>>> guesses on
>>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 05:31:36 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:01:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906040231y2d166518nd4021312e384ea26@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,


On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular paragraphs
> inclusion
> - many others have supported it however. Does anyone else object to this
> particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 4/06/09 7:46 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> >>
> >>
> >>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes
> that it
> >>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> >>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I
> would
> >>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> >>  process."
> >>
> >
> > that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.
>

I feel that the above paragraph is alright if "irrespective of when the JPA
actually ends, however" and "early 2010" and if is worded as " the IGC
believes that it should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon
as possible, in an open, transparent and inclusive process."

This may perhaps be agreeable to all.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


> >
> >
>


>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090604/f717625e/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 Jun  4 05:38:42 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:08:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906040238q20a0ce09y91a9b9453b207804@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Parminder


On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  I can go with the present text. However I will request the co-coordinator
> to give the following serious consideration.
>
> I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA should end'
> is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 'Some of us
> believe the JPA should be ended now.....'
>
> I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in
> favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's
> language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>

Thank you. Infact you later suggestion that the wording could be "JPA should
end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. is even better.

>
>
> In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who have
> reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on technical
> grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new
> arrangements are finalized".
>
> This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.
>

I have some reservations. This paragraphs points to divisions within the
Caucus that are not yet defined. In any group, the views of the majority are
taken as voted, and once taken what is passed is deemed the views of the
WHOLE group. At that stage we don't say that 80 people voted for, and 20
against. 1) It is not necessary to talk about internal differences in an
opinion that goes out to be published and 2) "possible dangers of creating a
new vacuum as new arrangements are finalized" creates enough of an alarm to
discourage ending of the JPA,. so this statement whether expressed as the
opinion of the group or even as one or two members, is negative.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> likewise, fine by me
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu <jeanette at wzb.eu>]
> Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
>
>
> Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> jeanette
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> express the other side!
>
> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
> about JPA, how does this sit.
>
> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a
> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that
> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>
> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> this additional text?
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> extension also won't change my mind.
>
> jeanette
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>  This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu <jeanette at wzb.eu>]
>
> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> the JPA ends.
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090604/3438dee8/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  Thu Jun  4 06:18:33 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:18:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>

Dear all

Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
possible.

Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
most) submissions from civil society.

Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
general.

Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:

> > I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
> > said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
> > privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
> > accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
> > control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> > some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> > multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> > political point, not a technical one.

I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:

"4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
in these areas?"

Jeanette also says:

> > We want to get rid of unilateral 
> > control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> > some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> > multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> > political point, not a technical one.

Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:

Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience

Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement

Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation

Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so

I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.

> By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
> immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
> JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
> finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
> does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
> strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.

Agree with Parminder on this.

Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
really three primary points we want to get accross:

1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
sector, civil society, and the academic and research community. 

2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
and civil society actors. 

We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
multi-stakeholder participation.

3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
highlight what they feel are most important. 

I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
regulator and the regulated. 

Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
in capturing consensus.

This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN. 

Anriette

> 
> However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.
> 
> Parminder

> 
> >
> >
> > However
> >> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
> >> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
> >> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
> >>
> >> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
> >> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
> >> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
> >> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
> >
> > But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
> > should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
> > openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> >  (Having different views is a
> >> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>> Parminder wrote:
> >>>> Jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> The remark
> >>>>
> >>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
> >>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
> >>>>
> >>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
> >>>> See the emails below.
> >>>>
> >>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
> >>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
> >>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
> >>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
> >>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
> >>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
> >>>>> your position.
> >>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
> >>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
> >>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
> >>>>> than those speaking up here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Parminder wrote:
> >>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
> >>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Lee,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
> >>>>>>>> transition?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Lee
> >>>>>>>>     
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> >>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
> >>>>>>> guesses on
> >>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> frt rgds
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --c.a.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 07:19:09 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:19:09 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>

Yes, even better.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>,  "governance at lists.cpsr.org"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>,  Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
> "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> 
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > [...]
> >   
> >> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
> that
> >> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
> transition?
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>     
> >
> >
> > I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> > should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses
> on
> > what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> >
> >   


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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 07:18:35 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:18:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200906040818.AA18350628@rits.org.br>

I agree with the text with the modification proposed below by Parm.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,  Jeanette Hofmann
<jeanette at wzb.eu>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:09 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I can go with the present text. However I will request the 
> co-coordinator to give the following serious consideration.
> 
> I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA
> should 
> end' is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 
> 'Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now.....'
> 
> I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like
> 
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is
> in 
> favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
> language)
> 
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
> 
> In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who
> have 
> reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on
> technical 
> grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new 
> arrangements are finalized".
> 
> This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > likewise, fine by me
> > ________________________________________
> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> >
> > I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the
> latest version. It has my support.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> > Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> > jeanette
> >
> > Ian Peter wrote:
> >   
> >> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> >>
> >>
> >> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC
> believes that it
> >> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
> accountability
> >> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010
> (I would
> >> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and
> inclusive
> >> process."
> >>
> >>
> >> So the newly included text would read
> >>
> >> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced
> by a
> >> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders
> feel that
> >> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN is
> subject
> >> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> >> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement
> is not a
> >> lasting viable solution.
> >>
> >> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an
> ineffective
> >> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place
> ICANN on
> >> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us
> believe that
> >> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> >> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC
> believes that it
> >> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
> accountability
> >> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as
> possible in
> >> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
> >>
> >> What do you all think ? In or out?
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as
> well as
> >>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of
> this argument
> >>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for
> IGC to
> >>> express the other side!
> >>>
> >>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be
> the only
> >>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are
> happy to say
> >>> about JPA, how does this sit.
> >>>
> >>> The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced
> by a
> >>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders
> feel that
> >>> they have equitable arrangements for  participation, that ICANN
> is subject
> >>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> >>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA
> arrangement is not a
> >>> lasting viable solution.
> >>>
> >>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an
> ineffective
> >>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to
> place ICANN on
> >>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us
> believe that
> >>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> >>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary
> >>> changes.
> >>>
> >>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >>>
> >>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or
> without
> >>> this additional text?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract
> provides
> >>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this
> implies that
> >>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that
> external
> >>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my
> mind on
> >>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for
> an
> >>>> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>>>         
> >>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take
> place
> >>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not
> to let
> >>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place,
> then
> >>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability.
> The
> >>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to
> provide
> >>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place
> before
> >>>>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> You
> >>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> >>>>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>>           
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>
> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>         
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>       
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>     
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >   


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 07:17:22 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:47:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net> <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>

Anriette

Thanks for a very detailed analysis, and as you know I agree with all of 
it.

Just thought will contribute two comments (Ian, this is not necessarily 
to do with the text being considered.)

 >I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government

 >reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully

 >not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the

 >regulator and the regulated.

I agree that this is the principal problem with ICANN. However, such a 
situation is structural with industry-led models, isnt it. It can hardly 
be otherwise. It is for this reason that we should strongly oppose the 
language of 'industry-led' model used in the NTIA questionnaire.

Secondly, as for your very useful presentation of possible steps towards 
alternative arrangements, it is important that we reclaim the 'enhanced 
cooperation' framework for this purpose. That would be the clearly the 
most practical way to go forward. This framework is there, and there is 
an express direction to SG to do something on it, which he has not. It 
is  a bit odd to mention the need for  a process to start etc for an 
external accountability/ oversight framework without invoking the 
enhanced cooperation framework.

parminder




Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
> on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
> possible.
>
> Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
> emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
> arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
> most) submissions from civil society.
>
> Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
> when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
> not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
> general.
>
> Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:
>
>   
>>> I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
>>> said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
>>> privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
>>> accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>       
>
> I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
> a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
> courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
> about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
> responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
> on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
> driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
> participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
> model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:
>
> "4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
> of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
> out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
> Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12
>
> Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
> security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
> in these areas?"
>
> Jeanette also says:
>
>   
>>> We want to get rid of unilateral 
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>       
>
> Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:
>
> Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience
>
> Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement
>
> Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation
>
> Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so
>
> I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.
>
>   
>> By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
>> immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
>> JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
>> finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
>> does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
>> strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.
>>     
>
> Agree with Parminder on this.
>
> Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
> really three primary points we want to get accross:
>
> 1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
> constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
> participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
> sector, civil society, and the academic and research community. 
>
> 2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
> sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
> reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
> governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
> and civil society actors. 
>
> We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
> by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
> as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
> multi-stakeholder participation.
>
> 3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
> and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
> the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
> have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
> highlight what they feel are most important. 
>
> I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
> reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
> not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
> regulator and the regulated. 
>
> Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
> amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
> in capturing consensus.
>
> This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
> serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN. 
>
> Anriette
>
>   
>> However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.
>>
>> Parminder
>>     
>
>   
>>> However
>>>       
>>>> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
>>>> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
>>>> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
>>>>
>>>> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
>>>> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
>>>> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
>>>> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
>>>>         
>>> But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
>>> should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
>>> openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>  (Having different views is a
>>>       
>>>> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The remark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>>>>> See the emails below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>>>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
>>>>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>>>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>>>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
>>>>>>> your position.
>>>>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
>>>>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
>>>>>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
>>>>>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
>>>>>>>>> guesses on
>>>>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/220782d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 07:26:30 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:26:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906040426t3a98a131l90232c9f0246a270@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/09, carlos a. afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> Yes, even better.

A) if you carry on top posting we won't know what you are referring to.

B) if it's this:

> > I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
>  > "JPA
>  > should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

Well, that's just bizarre.  "End it, but transition to something else
unspecified with a MoU to another unspecified party"?

Do we not want to be taken seriously?  Seriously!?!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 12:31:00 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:31:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
 <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
> 
> Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular 
> paragraphs inclusion - many others have supported it however. Does anyone else 
> object to this particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?
> 

delete the word "multistakeholder" from "global, multistakeholder accountability framework," and move it to the enxt phrase, "development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process." 

"MS accountability framework reinforces" the idea that accountability comes from some organization or group sitting on top of ICANN and second-guessing its decisions. no, that's worse than what we have now. By "accountability framework" I mean legal recourse according to fixed, known rules. 

Whatever IGC does, I won't block consensus, we are filing our own comments anyway.  ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 13:17:02 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: 1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop
Message-ID: <sympa.1244135770.92033.172@lists.cpsr.org>

Dear Anriette,

Thank you for posting something well written and which is a well thought-out
consideration of the situation.

My question too You concern the Adjudication of matter(s) arrising from ICANN's
action in a Post-JPA world.

Where do you think the Adjudictional Authority be established with respect to
ICANN, IF: ...

1# ICANN vest it's power to Self-Adjudicates?
2# ICANN is subject to a Convention of Multi-National Governments?
3# ICANN is barred for any Self-Adjudication?
and
4# Within which Body(ies) will the Adjudication lye in fore mentioned
situations, when Legal Actions need to be takes within ICANN and upon ICANN?

Kind regards

--

Provided here is a short historical summary of the underwritten root of the
situation or root of the problem, depending on ones perspective.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 13:40:00 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:40:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
 <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>,<WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Me too, even better, that's a clean short sentence....which we might all agree on? 
________________________________________
From: carlos a. afonso [ca at rits.org.br]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:19 AM
To: Parminder
Cc: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; William  Drake; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Yes, even better.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>,  "governance at lists.cpsr.org"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>,  Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
> "JPA
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
> that
> >> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
> transition?
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> > should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses
> on
> > what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> >
> >


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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 13:51:25 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:51:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
 <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>,<4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder, Anriette,

This opens a longer discussion, beyond final tweaking of statement, but (in my opinion):

1) IGF is/will be the forum for enhanced cooperation, following wsis - I believe the Brazilian government has made  a statement along these lines not long ago.  I agree.

Benefit: since IGF already exists, we don;t need to invent it.   

2) IGF is already the (nascent) forum helping channel feedback from the interested multistakeholder community to ICANN.

Our objective is to eventually get govts & biz comfortable with 1 + 2, since I think cs already feels (reasonably) comfortable that its voices can be heard at IGF. 

It may well take the various steps Anriette outlined to get there, but at least (in my opinion) we know where  we are going....to Egypt! ; )

Lee
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Anriette

Thanks for a very detailed analysis, and as you know I agree with all of it.

Just thought will contribute two comments (Ian, this is not necessarily to do with the text being considered.)

>I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government

>reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully

>not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the

>regulator and the regulated.

I agree that this is the principal problem with ICANN. However, such a situation is structural with industry-led models, isnt it. It can hardly be otherwise. It is for this reason that we should strongly oppose the language of 'industry-led' model used in the NTIA questionnaire.

Secondly, as for your very useful presentation of possible steps towards alternative arrangements, it is important that we reclaim the 'enhanced cooperation' framework for this purpose. That would be the clearly the most practical way to go forward. This framework is there, and there is an express direction to SG to do something on it, which he has not. It is  a bit odd to mention the need for  a process to start etc for an external accountability/ oversight framework without invoking the enhanced cooperation framework.

parminder




Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

Dear all

Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
possible.

Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
most) submissions from civil society.

Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
general.

Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:



I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I
said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to
privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or
accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral
control and we want to replace it by something more international -
some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
political point, not a technical one.



I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:

"4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
in these areas?"

Jeanette also says:



We want to get rid of unilateral
control and we want to replace it by something more international -
some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
political point, not a technical one.



Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:

Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience

Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement

Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation

Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so

I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.



By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's
immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the
JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be
finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone
does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out
strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.



Agree with Parminder on this.

Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
really three primary points we want to get accross:

1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
sector, civil society, and the academic and research community.

2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
and civil society actors.

We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
multi-stakeholder participation.

3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
highlight what they feel are most important.

I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
regulator and the regulated.

Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
in capturing consensus.

This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN.

Anriette



However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.

Parminder






However


this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is
best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for
seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.

As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial
difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is
that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views
and/or action can be even more dangerous.


But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view,
should take into account that different positions may reflect the
openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).

jeanette

 (Having different views is a


different matter altogether though). Just my view.

parminder




Parminder wrote:


Jeanette

The remark

"I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
"JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "

was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it.
See the emails below.

When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving
more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I
am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.

As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up
here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's
Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.

parminder

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some
reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with
your position.
I definitely disagree with your version.

Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate
in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much
more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people
than those speaking up here.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:


I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
"JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

this language is even clearer and more powerful.





Carlos Afonso wrote:


Dear Lee,

Lee W McKnight wrote:
[...]



Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
participation in a transition process, with of course USG
noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
that
end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
transition?

Lee




I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
should not express our position (with the obvious educated
guesses on
what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...

frt rgds

--c.a.





____________________________________________________________
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<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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 16:11:09 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 13:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
Message-ID: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>

This is Milt Blitzer reporting directly from inside the Green-Belt Room!

Hot-off-the-Press: Twomey recommends extending the JPA
http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf


Thnx Evan
Ref:
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009/000604.html

[ALAC] Twomey testimony to US Congress on JPA and new gTLDs
Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org 
Thu Jun 4 15:08:08 EDT 2009 

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

Interesting reading...

http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

Other testimonies before the committee are available at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74

- Evan

--

Ian, 
I rest my Case [yehuda vs the rest of this list], for extension of the JPA.
Your all good sports, we just need to focus on the mechanisms of nuts & bolts
that make, whats working now ... work (Internationally)

In a Post-JPA environment, who will take over the NTIA's roll, the (US) State
Department's roll, the Judicial roll, the Commerce Department's roll, in an
International manner.

That's why I posted the attachment to:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
It maps out the rolls (nuts & bolts) required to run the Internet now.

-

I'm just an old Man,
:-) smile, don't take the world so seriously.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 16:38:05 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:38:05 +0300
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>

If you actually read the doc, he doesn't at all!

On 6/4/09, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:
> This is Milt Blitzer reporting directly from inside the Green-Belt Room!
>
>  Hot-off-the-Press: Twomey recommends extending the JPA
>  http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

"It is now time to end the 11 years of temporary MOUs and tentative
acceptance of this
model. In fact it is a unique time to show that the model within which
stakeholders can
address issues is the right one – and there are not other models, this
is the one and it is
designed to continuously improve."


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Thu Jun  4 16:45:07 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:45:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org> <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF695E91-FD6F-471E-B1AB-D4881E09789C@internet.law.pro>

My reading of the Twomey testimony (and I haven't yet listened to the  
audio), is:

1. He asks for the U.S. to *end* the Joint Project Agreement, by which  
ICANN and the U.S. set ICANN's agenda and policy priorities; but

2. The U.S. should take some comfort in doing 1. because it still has  
the IANA contract by which it will be able to exercise oversight  
authority.

This makes sense as a next step, and I fully support it!

      Bret


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

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 17:36:21 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 14:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: CF695E91-FD6F-471E-B1AB-D4881E09789C@internet.law.pro
Message-ID: <sympa.1244151116.92586.871@lists.cpsr.org>

Bret,

My interpretation of Twomey's view is, We will extend it in essence without the
"agreement", in other word, at this point in time stay-the-course and submiss
the IANA function to the USG.

So he proposes a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' that things won't change for now (in
the Post-JPA atmosphere).

-
Ref.:
http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

Ibid., 3
...
Somehow overtime the language of the JPA has become the language of separation:
“ICANN is leaving home”; “ICANN is seeking independence”; “ICANN
wants to become less accountable”. That language is wrong and has confused
the understanding of what the JPA is and what conclusion means. ICANN is not
seeking independence; we have been independent since 1999. ICANN is not leaving
home. The United States will always be our corporate headquarters.
ICANN is not seeking less accountability. We are actively seeking more. ...

-

Ibid., 6-7
...
Enshrining What Works Whilst the JPA is not an oversight mechanism, what JPA
conclusion could and should signal is in fact permanence and entrenchment of
the good work done in building this successful model. As an organization with
international stakeholders we know that to extend JPA would be greeted with
concern. It galvanizes other governments and government institutions to demand
an additional role too. After 11 years of ‘testing’, renewing or extending
JPA – the possibility of another “temporary” agreement (the 8th in a row)
causes those with an interest to ‘model shop’ as they wait for some further
period for the original model to be confirmed. It is now time to end the 11
years of temporary MOUs and tentative acceptance of this model. In fact it is a
unique time to show that the model within which stakeholders can address issues
is the right one – and there are not other models, this is the one and it is
designed to continuously improve. The better route is to enshrine the
fundamental principles that have served all stakeholders so well as ICANN’s
permanent charter going forward.

ICANN will always:
Retain a narrow mission; Remain based in the US; Remain a not for profit;
Remain an independent organization; Remain private sector, multi stakeholder
led; Ensure the role of Governments in the ICANN model through the Governmental
Advisory Committee; Remain committed to continuous improvement. IANA Contract
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is what affords ICANN the
responsibility for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and
other Internet protocol resources. The IANA contract is held by the Department
of Commerce. When the JPA concludes in September, the U.S. Government role will
and must continue through IANA contract for the organization’s own legitimacy
and purpose. And being a California based company ensures ICANN is subject to
Congressional oversight and US legal process. Like any contract, ICANN must
perform the function with excellence. The United States Government and the
Congress will always hold oversight hearings and reach out to the business
community, with or without any temporary agreements. ...____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 17:40:11 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 14:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>

McTim,

I didn't read it that way,  My interpretation is that he would intend that
things be 'Status-Quo', minus the Pulp.

> ... and there are not other models, this
is the one and it is designed to continuously improve." ...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Thu Jun  4 17:43:59 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:43:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <B78F5D4A-CD79-4F40-9277-13AE63A68FD8@internet.law.pro>

> My interpretation is that he would intend that
> things be 'Status-Quo', minus the Pulp.

Then I think we are probably in agreement on what he said, but I think  
the "Pulp Free ICANN" would be an incremental step in the right  
direction. :-)

         Bret



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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 18:54:10 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:54:10 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244135770.92033.172@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <C64E8DB2.2B7D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks, I am about to post under a separate heading a new draft of this

But firstly I want to acknowledge the driving will to reach a consensus here
which has been evident in so many postings. That is good news and bides well
for our future. Lets also realise how difficult this subject is.

But I note that many people, as well as myself having read the comments
received, remain uncomfortable about the additional text I proposed
yesterday. So before going to a draft let me comment on why I personally
think it should be left out.

Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little uncomfortable
about including text relating to this. Others clearly are as well, wanting
to change the balance with phrases such as "most of us" and "some of us"
etc. Bill rightly points out how counterproductive it would be to try and
present minority and majority opinions here. So to proceed with an area of
text that makes few people happy and is actually weakening our stance  just
for the sake of consensus does not appeal to me greatly. Milton makes this
point strongly.

I also have some problems with the text

>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>  framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible, in
an open, transparent and inclusive
>>  process

Firstly, "replacement" tends to suggest external oversight, which we don't
all agree with. Secondly "new" suggests the current model should be
abandoned, rather than strengthened or built on. "development of a new
model" has similar connotations. So I am going to personally suggest this
text be left out.

So to test the wind here - under separate heading I will present a draft
with the additional later text bracketed, and call for either "yes with
bracketed text" or "yes without bracketed text". That will allow us to
decide which version to put up for the final call (something we need to do
within 24 hours) 

Ian Peter


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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 19:04:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:04:48 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
Message-ID: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
your preference of versions with either of the following

YES without bracketed text

Or

YES with bracketed text


If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.

Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.

Thanks,

Ian Peter

The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
respectfully submit as  follows.
In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We
believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
internet governance  arrangements.
 
We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
facts in mind.   


BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS ­ PLEASE INDICATE ³YES² OR ³NO² TO ITS INCLUSION IN
YOUR RESPONSE


[On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
viable solution.
 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
transparent and inclusive process.]






 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/b0e6cfab/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 Jun  4 19:18:22 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:48:22 -0430
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28563E.4020900@gmail.com>

Yes without bracketed text.

Thanks to all of you for your excellent discussion. Great job of 
moderating, Ian!
Best, ginger

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved 
> the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the 
> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our 
> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and 
> for representation of civil society contributions in Internet 
> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide 
> spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be 
> found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and respectfully submit as follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of 
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet 
> stability and security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by 
> ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The 
> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot 
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles 
> which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> · bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> · balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society 
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> · ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> · transparency
>
>
> · appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> · continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> · decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit 
> on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process 
> which the US Government has supported, and which is an important 
> facet, we believe, of effective internet governance arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution 
> of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly 
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with 
> regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and 
> over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). 
> The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to 
> ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS 
> INCLUSION IN YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition 
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they 
> have equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject 
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. 
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA 
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an 
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
> to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, 
> some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be 
> the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board 
> necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, 
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an 
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 19:59:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:59:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64E8DB2.2B7D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Before I am accused of being misleading with my comments in the previous
message -

I should make clear that Bill Drake is, to my knowledge, supportive of the
bracketed text as it stands. His comments related to suggested changes to
the text that would indicate more of us oppose the JPA extension than
support it. I certainly don't mean to imply in my message that Bill (or
Milton) have indicated opposition to inclusion of the bracketed text. They
are both more than capable of stating their own opinions on this!

Ian Peter




On 5/06/09 8:54 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks, I am about to post under a separate heading a new draft of this
> 
> But firstly I want to acknowledge the driving will to reach a consensus here
> which has been evident in so many postings. That is good news and bides well
> for our future. Lets also realise how difficult this subject is.
> 
> But I note that many people, as well as myself having read the comments
> received, remain uncomfortable about the additional text I proposed
> yesterday. So before going to a draft let me comment on why I personally
> think it should be left out.
> 
> Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little uncomfortable
> about including text relating to this. Others clearly are as well, wanting
> to change the balance with phrases such as "most of us" and "some of us"
> etc. Bill rightly points out how counterproductive it would be to try and
> present minority and majority opinions here. So to proceed with an area of
> text that makes few people happy and is actually weakening our stance  just
> for the sake of consensus does not appeal to me greatly. Milton makes this
> point strongly.
> 
> I also have some problems with the text
> 
>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>> it
>>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>>  framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible, in
> an open, transparent and inclusive
>>>  process
> 
> Firstly, "replacement" tends to suggest external oversight, which we don't
> all agree with. Secondly "new" suggests the current model should be
> abandoned, rather than strengthened or built on. "development of a new
> model" has similar connotations. So I am going to personally suggest this
> text be left out.
> 
> So to test the wind here - under separate heading I will present a draft
> with the additional later text bracketed, and call for either "yes with
> bracketed text" or "yes without bracketed text". That will allow us to
> decide which version to put up for the final call (something we need to do
> within 24 hours) 
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 21:47:39 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 18:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244166360.92586.153@lists.cpsr.org>

YES with bracketed text

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 22:01:28 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:01:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement]
Message-ID: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0500
From: Francisco Arias <francisco at arias.com.mx>
Reply-To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group 
<lacnog at lacnic.net>
To: lacnog at lacnic.net
References: <list-17708561 at execdsl.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
Date: 2009/6/3
Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>


Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
the root signed by the end of the year.

Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html

The text of the NIST press release is copied below.

Steve



Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 3, 2009

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.

The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
(e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
securing information provided by the DNS.

“The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
“The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
commitment.”

"NIST has been an active participant within the international
community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”

The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
communications and information policies. For more information about
the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.

As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.
_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list
LACNOG at lacnic.net
https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  4 22:53:48 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:53:48 +0800
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>

YES with bracketed text

--  
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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 23:08:07 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:08:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Yes with bracketed text. 

And for political correctness, add 'the US Dept of Commerce's natl Telecom (spell out full name) administration, JPA (spell out) with....' at the appropriate spot, instead of the short form. Since we want to be polite.
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:53 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text

YES with bracketed text

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

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

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 00:28:21 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:28:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906042128x296fef2dw4e5f4d31717b8a3c@mail.gmail.com>

YES without bracketed text, will not oppose consensus...

--
McTim

On 6/5/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
>  YES without bracketed text
>
>  Or
>
>  YES with bracketed text
>
>
>  If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
>  Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
>  Thanks,
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 01:40:39 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:10:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28AFD7.1000706@itforchange.net>

Yes, with the bracketed part.

I understand that if that if the bracketed part is carried, it will come 
in its original place in the text, immediately preceding ' Irrespective 
of whether the JPA continues or not...."

Thanks for a great work on this Ian.

Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved 
> the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the 
> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our 
> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and 
> for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet 
> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide 
> spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be 
> found at www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society". We also recognise the need for high levels of 
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet 
> stability and security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by 
> ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The 
> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot 
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles 
> which need to be permanently embedded are:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit 
> on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process 
> which the US Government has supported, and which is an important 
> facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>  
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution 
> of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly 
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with 
> regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and 
> over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). 
> The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to 
> ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.   
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS -- PLEASE INDICATE "YES" OR "NO" TO ITS 
> INCLUSION IN YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition 
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they 
> have equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject 
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. 
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA 
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an 
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
> to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, 
> some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be 
> the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board 
> necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, 
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an 
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/33247a8f/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  Fri Jun  5 02:57:52 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:57:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <822C33EA-7905-4EE2-B209-50DE0024789D@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Before I am accused of being misleading with my comments in the  
> previous
> message -

???  No worries.

>>
>> Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little  
>> uncomfortable
>> about including text relating to this.

I don't actually think we're so divided.  Some of us just think it'd  
be better to tie ending to establishment of an external accountability  
framework (rules, not oversight), that the prospects for successful  
conclusion of such a thing become even more remote after a period of  
independent operation, and that this may further agitate things in  
certain intergovernmental circles.  It's a tactical and timing  
question rather than a matter of principle, and nobody's going to hari  
kari, especially if there's language reflecting the variation.  So  
let's focus on what unites rather than divides us (sorry to sound like  
Obama).

Anyway, yes with bracketed text.

Thanks for the good process management, Ian.

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

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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri Jun  5 03:14:29 2009
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:14:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [Fwd: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement]
In-Reply-To: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>
References: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20090605071429.GA23969@nic.fr>

> Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the
> U.S. Dept of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work
> together

A more realistic (but less diplomatic) summary would be "The US
governement, world ruler of the DNS, decided that Verisign will sign
the root and that ICANN will be allowed to watch."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Jun  5 03:21:15 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:21:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28C76B.9090101@wzb.eu>

Hi, yes with bracketed text

and thanks from me as well for all your work and your good moderation.

jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
> 
> YES without bracketed text
> 
> Or
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> 
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
> 
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the 
> UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up 
> to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to 
> provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation 
> of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We 
> have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic 
> representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of 
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet 
> stability and security.
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN 
> to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The 
> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot 
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which 
> need to be permanently embedded are:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> ·      transparency
> 
> 
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
> 
> 
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on 
> the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which 
> the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we 
> believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>  
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of 
> a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly 
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory 
> authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical 
> resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of 
> due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be 
> developed with these facts in mind.   
> 
> 
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION 
> IN YOUR RESPONSE
> 
> 
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition 
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have 
> equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due 
> process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, 
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is 
> not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective 
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN 
> on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us 
> believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most 
> effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the 
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, 
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jun  5 05:52:46 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:52:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 ,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>

Yes with bracketed text.

Well done, Ian, and everyone who contributed so constructively.

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Jun  5 05:55:54 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:55:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A28EBAA.5020102@rits.org.br>

Yes with bracketed text. I second Lee's suggestion and would revise the
text to include the full meaning of all acroyms when they are first
mentioned in the text, like WSIS (which is mentioned at the beginning
and expanded later on etc).

frt rgds

--c.a.

Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Yes with bracketed text.
> 
> And for political correctness, add 'the US Dept of Commerce's natl
> Telecom (spell out full name) administration, JPA (spell out)
> with....' at the appropriate spot, instead of the short form. Since
> we want to be polite. ________________________________________ From:
> Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009
> 10:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re:
> [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL
> OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> 
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726
> 8599 www.consumersinternational.org
> 
> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global 
> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer 
> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more 
> information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From guru at itforchange.net  Fri Jun  5 06:32:20 2009
From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:02:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28F434.60308@itforchange.net>

Yes with bracketed text.

thanks
Guru


Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
> 
> YES without bracketed text
> 
> Or
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> 
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
> 
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society 
> and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the 
> UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up 
> to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to 
> provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation 
> of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We 
> have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic 
> representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of 
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet 
> stability and security.
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN 
> to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar 
> accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The 
> principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot 
> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which 
> need to be permanently embedded are:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> ·      transparency
> 
> 
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
> 
> 
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on 
> the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which 
> the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we 
> believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>  
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of 
> a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly 
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory 
> authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical 
> resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of 
> due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be 
> developed with these facts in mind.   
> 
> 
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION 
> IN YOUR RESPONSE
> 
> 
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition 
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have 
> equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due 
> process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, 
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is 
> not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective 
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN 
> on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us 
> believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most 
> effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the 
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, 
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel:98454 37730
www.ITforChange.net
http://Public-Software.in
http://India.IS-Watch.net
http://IS-Watch.net
http://content-commons.in
*IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United
Nations’ Economic and Social Council*

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 07:35:30 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:35:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906050435g65265003t96ba66cc457174ec@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian and all,

Yes with the bracketed text. I back IGC's proposal to replace "private
sector management" with multistakeholder management and effective
internet governance  arrangement.

Then, I would also like everyone to go through Vint Cerf's letter to
the ICANN before submission of this text:
https://quick-proxy.appspot.com/tr.im/nrbL

It should be noted that even Vint Cerf calls for abandoning the idea
of JPA extension. He states that the JPA should be considered only as
a test phase process. He further says that ICANN be multistakeholder
led but at the same wants independent and private sector operated
organization (that I would personally oppose and the IGC collectively
does too). That test phase has clearly demonstrated that the
coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers is best done by an
organization that is and always should be:
- Multi-stakeholder led;
- Independent and private sector operated;
- Continually seeking more accountability;
- A not for profit corporation
- Committed to the performance of a narrow but critical technical function



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We
> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in
> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
> management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
> Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
> has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
> internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION IN
> YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg  Fri Jun  5 07:40:28 2009
From: iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg (Iliya Bazlyankov)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:40:28 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <62115.78.130.152.141.1244202028.squirrel@regia.bg>

Hi,

YES with bracketed text.

Regards,
Iliya

> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN№s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide
> a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
> about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
> respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information SocietyІ. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN№s operation. We
> believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in
> its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
> various
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way
> as
> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder
> management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
> Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
> has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
> internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
> over
> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with
> these
> facts in mind.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS ­ PLEASE INDICATE іYESІ OR іNOІ TO ITS INCLUSION IN
> YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly
> believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA
> to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting
> viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 07:51:49 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:21:49 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest
 version (McTim's changes)
Message-ID: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>

Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

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 its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.

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

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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Fri Jun  5 08:43:54 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:43:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>

Yes, with bracketed text.

Thanks for your patient coordination on this one, Ian.

Willie
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 08:46:56 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:46:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
Message-ID: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>

This doesn't sound promising from the perspective of immediate  
terminators.  Shared concerns, different conclusions.


http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/internet-group-skewered-by-hou.php


THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

Internet Group Skewered By Lawmakers

A chorus of House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee  
members today called for an extension of the U.S. government's formal  
oversight agreement with the nonprofit that administers the Internet  
domain name system, citing concerns about the 11-year-old  
organization's transparency, accountability, budget processes, and  
stakeholder affairs. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and  
Numbers remains "far from a model of effective and sustainable self- 
governance" and it would be unwise to shrink the federal government's  
role amid increased cyber attacks and rapid Internet innovation,  
Rep.John Dingell, D-Mich., said at a hearing. Subcommittee ranking  
member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., Mike Doyle, D-Pa., John Shimkus, R-Ill.,  
and Lee Terry, R-Neb., each backed the extension of a joint project  
agreement between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and  
Information Administration.

"ICANN seems better at furthering its own interests than those of the  
millions of Internet users it's supposed to look out for," Doyle said.  
Terry and others emphasized the issue is a matter of national security  
and must be examined carefully." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said ICANN  
does not have the independent, authoritative governance structure to  
keep other governments from abusing their power to interfere with  
Internet governance and citizens' use of the platform. Subcommittee  
Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., is reportedly drafting a letter to NTIA  
with the backing of Stearns and Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe  
Barton that recommends a one-year extension of the agreement. Boucher  
told Tech Daily Dose after the hearing that he had not made a firm  
decision on how to proceed but would be doing so in the near future.

ICANN President Paul Twomey insisted his group has improved its  
operation and has "passed the test" proposed in its original 1998  
arrangement with NTIA that a multi-stakeholder, private sector led  
could perform a narrow technical function. He also pointed out that a  
separate NTIA-ICANN deal pertaining to the global coordination of the  
domain name system's backbone and IP address allocation, which is the  
"key instrument of oversight," will not sunset. Twomey also warned  
that any temporary extension of the JPA will send a signal  
internationally that the U.S. government does not have faith in  
ICANN's industry driven model. For years, some foreign governments and  
stakeholders have called for alternatives to the existing governance  
structure like oversight by the United Nations or other international  
bodies.

Christine Jones, general counsel for Web hosting company GoDaddy, said  
ICANN has made great progress toward achieving the goals laid out as  
part of its formation but has "not yet achieved the competition or  
bottom-up representation called for" in its bylaws. Her company  
believes the JPA must not only be extended but also revised to include  
openness and transparency as overall guiding principles, she said.  
NTIA Associate Administrator Fiona Alexander told the subcommittee  
that regardless of whether the JPA is terminated, modified, or  
extended, her agency will be active as part of ICANN's Governmental  
Advisory Committee and by filing comments in various public  
consultations.

Twomey also pledged not to move forward on ICANN's introduction of new  
top-level domains, such as .biz, .info, and .us, until fraud-related  
fears by brand owners are addressed. ICANN plans to begin accepting  
applications for new domains in early 2010, which could bring in an  
initial $90 million for ICANN plus steep renewal fees. As a result,  
businesses and consumers will face higher Internet-related costs,  
Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch said. "ICANN has  
acknowledged concerns but has not adequately addressed them," she  
said, suggesting the group commission an impartial study of the domain  
name marketplace to gauge whether there is a need for hundreds of new  
domains and whether proposed changes would guard against cyber- 
squatting, fraud, and confusion.



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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 08:47:48 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:17:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop> <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906050547h44b87e77hd25bfc3ceed2f61a@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, without bracketed text

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy



On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Willie Currie <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:

> Yes, with bracketed text.
>
> Thanks for your patient coordination on this one, Ian.
>
> Willie
>
>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090605/26411e6c/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  Fri Jun  5 09:35:20 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:35:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>

All:

The bottom of the web  page:


http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74


contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
entire hearing.

I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
that were said.

3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
convey.

George

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





At 2:46 PM +0200 6/5/09, William Drake wrote:
>This doesn't sound promising from the perspective of immediate 
>terminators.  Shared concerns, different conclusions.
>
>
>http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/internet-group-skewered-by-hou.php
>
>
>THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
>
>Internet Group Skewered By Lawmakers
>
>A chorus of House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee 
>members today called for an extension of the U.S. government's 
>formal oversight agreement with the nonprofit that administers the 
>Internet domain name system, citing concerns about the 11-year-old 
>organization's transparency, accountability, budget processes, and 
>stakeholder affairs. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
>Numbers remains "far from a model of effective and sustainable 
>self-governance" and it would be unwise to shrink the federal 
>government's role amid increased cyber attacks and rapid Internet 
>innovation, Rep.John Dingell, D-Mich., said at a hearing. 
>Subcommittee ranking member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., Mike Doyle, 
>D-Pa., John Shimkus, R-Ill., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., each backed the 
>extension of a joint project agreement between ICANN and the 
>National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
>
>"ICANN seems better at furthering its own interests than those of 
>the millions of Internet users it's supposed to look out for," Doyle 
>said. Terry and others emphasized the issue is a matter of national 
>security and must be examined carefully." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., 
>said ICANN does not have the independent, authoritative governance 
>structure to keep other governments from abusing their power to 
>interfere with Internet governance and citizens' use of the 
>platform. Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., is reportedly 
>drafting a letter to NTIA with the backing of Stearns and Energy and 
>Commerce ranking member Joe Barton that recommends a one-year 
>extension of the agreement. Boucher told Tech Daily Dose after the 
>hearing that he had not made a firm decision on how to proceed but 
>would be doing so in the near future.
>
>ICANN President Paul Twomey insisted his group has improved its 
>operation and has "passed the test" proposed in its original 1998 
>arrangement with NTIA that a multi-stakeholder, private sector led 
>could perform a narrow technical function. He also pointed out that 
>a separate NTIA-ICANN deal pertaining to the global coordination of 
>the domain name system's backbone and IP address allocation, which 
>is the "key instrument of oversight," will not sunset. Twomey also 
>warned that any temporary extension of the JPA will send a signal 
>internationally that the U.S. government does not have faith in 
>ICANN's industry driven model. For years, some foreign governments 
>and stakeholders have called for alternatives to the existing 
>governance structure like oversight by the United Nations or other 
>international bodies.
>
>Christine Jones, general counsel for Web hosting company GoDaddy, 
>said ICANN has made great progress toward achieving the goals laid 
>out as part of its formation but has "not yet achieved the 
>competition or bottom-up representation called for" in its bylaws. 
>Her company believes the JPA must not only be extended but also 
>revised to include openness and transparency as overall guiding 
>principles, she said. NTIA Associate Administrator Fiona Alexander 
>told the subcommittee that regardless of whether the JPA is 
>terminated, modified, or extended, her agency will be active as part 
>of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and by filing comments in 
>various public consultations.
>
>Twomey also pledged not to move forward on ICANN's introduction of 
>new top-level domains, such as .biz, .info, and .us, until 
>fraud-related fears by brand owners are addressed. ICANN plans to 
>begin accepting applications for new domains in early 2010, which 
>could bring in an initial $90 million for ICANN plus steep renewal 
>fees. As a result, businesses and consumers will face higher 
>Internet-related costs, Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah 
>Deutsch said. "ICANN has acknowledged concerns but has not 
>adequately addressed them," she said, suggesting the group 
>commission an impartial study of the domain name marketplace to 
>gauge whether there is a need for hundreds of new domains and 
>whether proposed changes would guard against cyber-squatting, fraud, 
>and confusion.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Fri Jun  5 11:34:01 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:34:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>

Hi George

Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms crossed...

I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year. Asked about 
this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy Institute said that this was 
related to the problem of accountability as ICANN is only accontable to 
itself.

Willie

 George Sadowsky wrote:
> All:
>
> The bottom of the web  page:
>
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74 
>
>
>
> contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
> entire hearing.
>
> I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
> of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
> opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
> that were said.
>
> 3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
> video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
> convey.
>
> 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 11:41:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:41:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>

Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger points
out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.

Before I go further it would be useful to hear from others in the group
concerning those comments.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

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 its successful implementation of the principle of
mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
discussion.

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.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 11:56:37 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:56:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] IP and the Working Group on the Right to
 Development
Message-ID: <3AC88A362276425BBBA75C03792BF1DB@userPC>


I think this may be of interest...

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org]
On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:28 PM
To: NLS IP; Commons Law; A2K Discussion List
Subject: [A2k] IP and the Working Group on the Right to Development


Dear All,
The Working Group on the Right to Development, a body established by the UN
Commission on Human Rights in1998 and whose mandate was continued by the UN
Human Rights Council, is looking at the WHO's IGWG and Wipo's Development
Agenda.  The IP-Watch report talks of the body working towards a better
balance between the "needs of industry and the needs of public policy".  Do
people on this list believe that such a distinction is valid?  Can't it be
argued that 'IP maximalism' harms industry too, while benefiting a few
monopolists / established players?

Regards,
Pranesh

Experts Aim To Balance Intellectual Property Rights And Human Rights

By Kaitlin Mara on 15 May 2009 @ 6:05 pm

The United Nations human rights framework is being brought to bear on
intellectual property law, in the hopes that the weight of expert voices in
human rights can lead IP regimes toward a better balance between the needs
of industry and the needs of public policy.

The Working Group on the Right to Development, an intergovernmental
political body, in August 2008 took on the task of examining two
intellectual property-related development partnerships that could influence
the work of policymakers in at least two UN institutions.

The two partnerships are: the World Health Organization (WHO)
Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property (IGWG), and the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda.

The examination is being carried out by a high level-task force, a small
team of technical experts that acts at the behest of the working group. The
task force was created with the intention of moving right to development
discussions beyond political declarations from the working group into
concrete progress. The task force held its annual meeting from 1-9 April.
The task force secretary is Shyami Puvimanasinghe, from the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The coordinator of the unit on
the Right to Development at OHCHR is Goro Onojima.

The task force has completed an initial review of the IGWG process, which
included an independent consultation paper (IPW, United Nations, 3 April
2009 [1]), though it has plans to make a ‘return visit’ in the future to
check on ongoing work.

Analysis of the Development Agenda is still in the planning phases. The task
force is tracking preparations for a conference on IP and global challenges
being hosted by WIPO 13-14 July, to see if attending the conference will be
useful for its mandate. But to represent the right to development there, the
task force must wait for a mandate from the working group, which meets for
one week starting 22 June.

IP and human rights usually operate on different levels - an IP right is a
temporary monopoly; a human right is seen as something universal and
never-ending - but they can come into conflict.

The critical point with intellectual property rights and human rights,
according to Stephen Marks, a public health professor at Harvard University
who also chairs the high level task force, lies in resolving the
longstanding tension between these two kinds of rights.

For example, if patent limits access to new technologies it could be
construed to be an obstacle for the realisation of the human right to
benefit from scientific progress, said Marks. At the same time, IP has a
valuable function in stimulating innovation that leads to that scientific
progress, he added.

Defining Development: Human Rights Criteria

The high level task force is comprised of five experts, currently: Marks,
the chair; Nico Schrijver of Leiden University (Netherlands) Grotius Centre
for International Legal Studies; Sakiko Fukuda-Parr of the New School (US);
Raymond Atuguba of the Law Faculty at the University of Ghana; and Flavia
Piovesan of the Faculty of Law at Pontifical Catholic University of São
Paolo (Brazil). It also includes international agency observers from the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Bank, the UN Development
Programme, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade
Organization (WTO).

It carries out its reviews of development partnerships using a set of
criteria [2] [doc, Annex II] for evaluating partnerships.

The criteria analyse: structural framework, for example whether a
partnership’s institutions contribute to “an enabling environment for
sustainable development” or promote good governance; process, for example
the promotion of gender equality or provisions for meaningful stakeholder
consultation; and outcome, e.g. whether the partnership achieves
“improvement in the well-being of populations and all individuals” in
accordance with the declaration on the right to development.

The task force also has a mandate to draw up a set of “operational
sub-criteria” [3] [pdf] that would include more specific, concrete
provisions. The work of the task force is submitted to the Working Group on
the Right to Development, which takes recommendations from the task force
but is not bound by them in making decisions.

The criteria are not yet finalised, and information gleaned from the process
of analysing partnerships is being used to refine them. The exercise has a
deadline of 2010 to come up with a set of final criteria. Future work past
the 2010 deadline is an area of contention.

A 2007 working group report [4] [pdf] said that future work might “take
various forms, including guidelines on the implementation of the right to
development, and evolve into a basis for consideration of an international
legal standard of a binding nature, through a collaborative process of
engagement.”

If a legal convention on the right to development were to be formed, the
high level task force would likely become the drafting body for
international legislation, as it is the expert body on the issue, according
to a source familiar with the negotiations.

Susan Mathews, who was previously the secretary of the working group, said
there are several potential outcomes of this evaluation process. After the
working group presents programmes of developmental assistance and other
partnerships to the Human Rights Council, the council adopts resolutions
endorsing the findings of the working group, providing it legal backing.

Alternatively, the criteria of the working group could be adopted as a soft
law mechanism, providing guidelines for implementation and perhaps more
flexibility than international law as presently interpreted would allow, she
said. At the same time, any set of criteria needs to have a practical
application.

“It is not clear what the future beyond the third phase due to be concluded
in 2010 will be, and how the working group will continue its work and
whether the task force will continue in this form or take another. However,
it is essential that the work done till that date is carried on in some form
or it will not have a sustainable, lasting impact or value,” Mathews
explained.

Sources said that a group of countries from the global South referred to as
the Non-Aligned Movement [5] and the Group of African countries would like
to see a binding international agreement, in recognition of international
obligations and responsibilities pertaining to the right to development. For
countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, the right to development has a
distinct “international dimension.”  With regard to the right to development
acquiring legal character, developing countries are the primary actors
making the push.

Industrialised countries, by contrast, prefer the right to development to
fall under the auspices of national governments, and thus have called for
more tempered language regarding binding legal norms, according to sources.

The human rights paradigm and its values have already begun to shift the
world of intellectual property in the health sector, said Marks. The 2001
WTO Doha Declaration on Public Health, which outlines flexibilities in
intellectual property rights trade rules that can be used to better serve
public health needs, as well as the so-called “paragraph 6” solution which
provides further flexibilities aimed at serving countries that lack the
manufacturing capacity to produce needed medicines, are both examples of
this shift, he added.

The June meeting of the working group will indicate the next steps on the
intersection of IP and public interest goals for the human rights experts.
Categories: English, Features, Human Rights, IP Policies, Patent Policy,
Public Health, Themes, United Nations, Venues, WHO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/15/experts-aim-to-balance-intellectua
l-property-rights-and-human-rights/

URLs in this post:

[1] IPW, United Nations, 3 April 2009:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/03/high-level-task-force-on-human-rig
hts-turns-eye-to-health-and-ip/

[2] set of criteria:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/development/groups/docs/reportHLTF2008.
doc

[3] has a mandate to draw up a set of “operational sub-criteria”:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/9session/A.HRC.9.17.pdf

[4] 2007 working group report:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/development/docs/WGreport2007.pdf

[5] Non-Aligned Movement: http://canada.cubanoal.cu/ingles/index.html

--
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k


!DSPAM:2676,4a28f40a25634361168727!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 12:15:04 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:45:04 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
References: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A294488.8020905@gmail.com>

Can you suggest an alternate wording? Now you have had time to think 
about it :)

gurstein wrote:
> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger points
> out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.
>
> Before I go further it would be useful to hear from others in the group
> concerning those comments.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
> Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
> made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
> the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>
> 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 its successful implementation of the principle of
> mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
> developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
> discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 12:50:26 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:50:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>

Okay, here it is...

MBG


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. 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.  

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.

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. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by
the broader base of possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they
might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to
creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead
of discussion.

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

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 its successful implementation of the principle of
mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
discussion.

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.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jun  5 12:54:21 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:54:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]> <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <p062007a2c64efa6b8edf@[10.0.1.3]>

Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

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


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on 
>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil 
>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. 
>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its 
>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil 
>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy 
>Institute said that this was related to the problem of 
>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of 
>>the entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the 
>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of 
>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent 
>>and perceptive things that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but 
>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript 
>>would not convey.
>>
>>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  Fri Jun  5 12:57:51 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:57:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]> <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <cj+Ntt6P6UKKFAyu@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A293AE9.2070803 at apc.org>, at 11:34:01 on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 
Willie Currie <wcurrie at apc.org> writes
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
>surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
>it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
>asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
>as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year.

That seemed to me to be one of the bigger misunderstandings.

It was stated quite clearly that as a not-for-profit the best practice 
is to have approximately one year's "normal" turnover in reserve. That's 
a simple fact - I've seen the same in many other not-for-profits.

And separately, that the new GTLD process was supposed to be revenue 
neutral, just covering its costs, not subsidised from other revenues but 
neither contributing to the surplus. So the surplus they were aiming for 
(approx $50m) reflects the turnover *apart* from new GTLDs, and the $90m 
is the estimated cost of running the new GTLD scheme.

Now, you can argue about any of those numbers being out by plus/minus, 
(or even whether the new GTD project is a good idea at all) but that's 
my understanding of the accounting framework.

[If, once it ever gets going, the new GTLD process turns out not to be 
revenue neutral as intended, then there will no doubt be an enquiry into 
why that happened].
-- 
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  Fri Jun  5 13:13:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:13:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p062007a2c64efa6b8edf@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>

George,

Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?

I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...

I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

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


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms 
>crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on
>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil 
>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. 
>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its 
>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil 
>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy 
>Institute said that this was related to the problem of 
>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of
>>the entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the
>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of 
>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent 
>>and perceptive things that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but
>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript 
>>would not convey.
>>
>>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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Jun  5 13:28:15 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:28:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
Message-ID: <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@[10.0.1.3]>

Mike,

Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I 
had heard earlier.

George

At 10:13 AM -0700 6/5/09, gurstein wrote:
>George,
>
>Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
>Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?
>
>I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
>colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
>All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
>incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
>MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...
>
>I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
>To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
>
>
>Hi, Willie,
>
>I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the
>most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the
>group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees
>and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not
>understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to
>have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He
>also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.
>
>But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's
>salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which
>I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey
>claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds
>that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more
>funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say
>about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In
>fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job
>in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing,
>with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I
>like very much.
>
>It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is
>such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other.
>Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so
>that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office
>in our government.
>
>Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a
>very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of
>Internet governance as well.
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>>Hi George
>>
>>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms
>>crossed...
>>
>>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on
>>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil
>>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil.
>>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its
>>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil
>>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy
>>Institute said that this was related to the problem of
>>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>>
>>Willie
>>
>>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>>All:
>>>
>>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>>
>>>
>>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of
>>>the entire hearing.
>>>
>>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the
>>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of
>>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent
>  >>and perceptive things that were said.
>>>
>>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but
>>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript
>>>would not convey.
>>>
>>>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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 13:30:32 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:30:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
Message-ID: <7AABFC3A7DE94A0C8059F89ECD57AF80@userPC>

Whoops ;-(

M

-----Original Message-----
From: gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'
Subject: RE: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


George,

Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?

I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...

I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

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


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms
>crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
>surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
>it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
>asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
>as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year. Asked about 
>this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy Institute said that this was 
>related to the problem of accountability as ICANN is only accontable to 
>itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
>>entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
>>of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
>>opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
>>that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
>>video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
>>convey.
>>
>>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

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 13:36:24 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:36:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
	 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/09, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> Mike,
>
>  Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I had
> heard earlier.

it's in the annual report or the budget, one of the latest docs
anyway.  I can't recall the name, but it's Ozzie fer sure mate!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 14:22:08 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:52:08 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>
References: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A296250.6040708@gmail.com>

How about this compromise between the two versions?

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. We feel however, that 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.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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 including, but not limited to, greater use of Remote Participation.





gurstein wrote:
> Okay, here it is...
>
> MBG
>
>
> 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. 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.  
>
> 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.
>
> 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by
> the broader base of possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they
> might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to
> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead
> of discussion.
>
> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
> Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
> made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
> the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>
> 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 its successful implementation of the principle of
> mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
> developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
> discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 15:11:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:11:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A296250.6040708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>

Ginger,

I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems to
me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is capitalized)
as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the way
I am suggesting...

So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, greater use
of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
particular areas of concern such as for example the disability communities,
indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or there
should be no examples.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
To: gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


How about this compromise between the two versions?

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. We feel however, that 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.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of
participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of
the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by
decisions instead of discussion.







gurstein wrote:
> Okay, here it is...
>
> MBG
>
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
> silence for assent?
>
> 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 its successful 
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
> the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 15:46:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:16:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>

To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:

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. We feel however, that 
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.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.


gurstein wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems to
> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is capitalized)
> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the way
> I am suggesting...
>
> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, greater use
> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability communities,
> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or there
> should be no examples.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>
> 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. We feel however, that 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.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of
> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of
> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by
> decisions instead of discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>   
>> Okay, here it is...
>>
>> MBG
>>
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
>> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
>> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
>> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
>> silence for assent?
>>
>> 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 its successful 
>> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
>> the present.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
>> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
>> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  5 16:42:00 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:42:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D1E353FED9F4899A202D4BD7DB0413E@userPC>

Hi Ginger,

I'm "satisficed" with this...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:47 PM
To: gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:

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. We feel however, that 
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.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.


gurstein wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
> seems to me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
> capitalized) as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my 
> mind "remote participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden 
> the base of inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of 
> participation in the way I am suggesting...
>
> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
> greater use of remote participation and specific outreach to 
> constituencies with particular areas of concern such as for example 
> the disability communities, indigenous peoples, ICT for Development 
> grassroots practitioners." or there should be no examples.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>
> 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. We feel however, 
> that 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.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>   
>> Okay, here it is...
>>
>> MBG
>>
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
>> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version 
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
>> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
>> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
>> silence for assent?
>>
>> 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 its successful 
>> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
>> the present.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
>> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
>> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   

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

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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Fri Jun  5 16:51:36 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:51:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
References: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
Message-ID: <3DC1835C-C925-4C60-8539-EF10633D42B9@telus.net>

On 5-Jun-09, at 8:41 AM, gurstein wrote:

> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger  
> points out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.

Rather than repeat myself (although what I've been saying is quite  
scattered across several threads), here's wording to initiate  
discussion of an issue of basic definition  that a revised draft  
might include:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
> .......

> 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 its  
> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism  
> from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in  
> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the  
> mutltistakeholder principle.

Okay to there,  Then say ....

However, the IGC is 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.

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.

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."

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jun  5 17:38:40 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:38:40 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
Message-ID: <C64FCD80.2C26%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>



Clearly the bracketed text should stay. I'll do up the final statement
shortly. Thanks everyone who responded.



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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jun  5 17:54:35 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:54:35 +1000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
Message-ID: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
statement ­ if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
in the next 48 hours.

At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.

Thank you everyone for your participation!

DRAFT FOLLOWS


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 
 
On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
viable solution.

 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
transparent and inclusive process.

Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
internet governance  arrangements.
 
We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
facts in mind.   



Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
Caucus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/58c7d937/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dcogburn at syr.edu  Fri Jun  5 18:10:47 2009
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:10:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <26DAC921-1704-4EC0-9F4A-662295E7D2A6@syr.edu>

Yes

Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
Syracuse University
http://cotelco.syr.edu

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:

Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.

At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.

Thank you everyone for your participation!

DRAFT FOLLOWS


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.

On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.

 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.

Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.

We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.



Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance Caucus
<message-footer.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/17a88484/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 dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 18:49:14 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
Message-ID: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Yes for me 

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu> wrote:

From: Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>
Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:10 PM

Yes

Dr. Derrick L. CogburnSyracuse Universityhttp://cotelco.syr.edu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.



At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.



Thank you everyone for your participation!



DRAFT FOLLOWS





The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.

 

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.



In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security. 

 

On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution..



 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.



Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.



Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:

 

·      bottom up co-ordination



 

·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users



 

·      ensuring the stability of the Internet



 

·      transparency



 

·      appropriate accountability mechanisms



 

·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent



 

·      decision making driven by the public interest



We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.

 

We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.   







Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance Caucus





<message-footer.txt>
-----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/20090605/b34f052a/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 hindenburgo at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 19:56:06 2009
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:56:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3ef75b780906051656m66cc837aqd3f16f41a41b965b@mail.gmail.com>

No for me!

2009/6/5 Dina <dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com>

> Yes for me
>
> --- On *Fri, 6/5/09, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
> To: "governance at lists..cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Ian Peter"
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:10 PM
>
>
> Yes
>
> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
> Syracuse University
> http://cotelco.syr.edu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<http://mc/compose?to=ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the
> Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US
> Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of
> effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> <message-footer.txt>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://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://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/20090605/d56675d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Fri Jun  5 22:48:18 2009
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:48:18 +0700
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>

Agreed,

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia


On Saturday, 6 June 2009 04:54:35 Ian Peter wrote:
[snip]
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
> about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way
> as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder
> group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
> ·      transparency
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the
> Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US
> Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of
> effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
> over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus



-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit 
The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.

This is the latest weekly editorial:

Law Enforcement, Follow-Up 
http://tinyurl.com/l823fr
(To read it, click on the line above.)

And here is something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com

PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jun  5 23:35:52 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:05:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Obama on US unilateralism
Message-ID: <4A29E418.8030209@itforchange.net>

I am pleasantly surprised that any US President, even Obama, could say this

 >Mr. Obama advocated universal disarmament, acknowledging the argument 
that there should be no double standards regarding possession of atomic
 > weapons. "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold 
nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment 
to seek >a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." (from his 
address at Cairo University)

Makes one really wonder how would he justify continued US unilateralism 
vis a vis IG issues, if he indeed does not make amends. Can he, 
correspondingly, for a start, at least assert 'America's commitment to 
seek a world in which no one nation holds any unilateral control over 
the global public resource that the Internet is', which will be the 
reversal of Bush administration's 'US's historic role' policy and 
world-view.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/5685cc29/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  Sat Jun  6 01:12:24 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:42:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906052212qd421a72x1bffa81376032884@mail.gmail.com>

No.


On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

> Agreed,
>
> Norbert Klein
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>
>
> On Saturday, 6 June 2009 04:54:35 Ian Peter wrote:
> [snip]
> > The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> > non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
> > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide
> a
> > forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> > society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> > hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
> > about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
> >
> > We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> > Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> >
> > In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> > principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> > according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> > people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> > Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of
> global
> > co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> > security.
> >
> > On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly
> believes
> > that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA
> to
> > a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> > arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> > procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> > believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting
> > viable solution.
> >
> >  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> > ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> > it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> > development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> > multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
> >
> > Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> > certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s
> operation.
> > We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to
> perpetuate
> > in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
> the
> > principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way
> > as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder
> > group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
> >
> > ·      bottom up co-ordination
> >
> > ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> > interests and Internet users
> >
> > ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> >
> > ·      transparency
> >
> > ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> >
> > ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> > model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and
> transparent
> >
> > ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> >
> > We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> > multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on
> the
> > Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the
> US
> > Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of
> > effective internet governance  arrangements.
> >
> > We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> > model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> > that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
> > over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources
> (IP
> > addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> > rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with
> these
> > facts in mind.
> >
> > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> > Caucus
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
> The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.
>
> This is the latest weekly editorial:
>
> Law Enforcement, Follow-Up
> http://tinyurl.com/l823fr
> (To read it, click on the line above.)
>
> And here is something new every day:
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
>
> PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/0c9b7bad/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 Jun  6 02:08:05 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri,  5 Jun 2009 23:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244268293.94268.554@lists.cpsr.org>

YES

Slight change in english dialect:
>... to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

can be shorten too
... to ensure that ICANN takes on necessary changes.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From qshatti at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 05:44:02 2009
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:44:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <609019df0906060244va6ae203t46766f6794f35e73@mail.gmail.com>

YES.

and thanks for a balanced statement.

Qusai

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the
> Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US
> Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of
> effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090606/a3520521/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 email at hakik.org  Sat Jun  6 07:31:32 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:31:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <20090606113230.A18146A41D@smtp1.electricembers.net>

YES for me and looking forward to their realizations.

Best regards,
Hakikur Rahman

At 10:54 PM 6/5/2009, Ian Peter wrote:
>Below is the final statement we propose to send 
>to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please 
>indicate YES or NO as regards your support for 
>this statement – if you have already indicated 
>in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to 
>vote again (in the interests of email flow). At 
>this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for 
>this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.
>
>At this stage no amendments can be accepted 
>which changes the meaning or emphasis of the 
>text. However we can certainly consider simple 
>changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
>Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
>DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
>The Internet Governance Caucus is a global 
>coalition of civil society and non governmental 
>organisations and individuals actively involved 
>the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 
>process. Formed during the lead up to the World 
>Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our 
>mission is to provide a forum for discussion, 
>advocacy, action, and for representation of 
>civil society contributions in  Internet 
>governance processes. We have several hundred 
>members, with a wide spread of geographic 
>representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
>We are thankful for the opportunity to comment 
>on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, 
>and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
>In responding to your call for comments, we are 
>mindful of the WSIS principles, which " 
>recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
>according to the Geneva principles, is an 
>essential element for a people-centred, 
>inclusive, development-oriented and 
>non-discriminatory Information Society”. We also 
>recognise the need for high levels of global 
>co-operation from all stakeholder groups to 
>ensure Internet stability and security.
>
>On your question as regards the future of the 
>JPA - The IGC firmly believes that global 
>co-operation will be enhanced by a transition 
>beyond the JPA to a situation where all 
>stakeholders feel that they have equitable 
>arrangements for participation, that ICANN is 
>subject to due process procedures and is 
>accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the 
>IGC believes that merely extending the current 
>JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended 
> now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal 
> with the problems that must be resolved to 
> place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. 
> On the other hand, some of us believe that a 
> time-limited extension of the JPA might be the 
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
>Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends 
>however, the IGC believes that it should be 
>replaced by a new global accountability 
>framework, the development of which should 
>commence as soon as possible in an open, 
>multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
>Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues 
>or not, we believe that certain principles 
>outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
>operation. We believe these should be covered by 
>an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its 
>constitution, by laws, or some similar 
>accountability mechanism, the principles which 
>follow. The principles need to be embedded in 
>such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be 
>changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The 
>principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
>·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
>·      balanced multi stakeholder 
>representation, including civil society interests and Internet users
>
>
>·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
>·      transparency
>
>
>·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
>·      continuing evolution of an effective and 
>appropriate governance model which is 
>multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
>·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>We also propose to replace "private sector 
>management" with multistakeholder management, 
>which has evolved from the World Summit on the 
>Information Society and the Internet Governance 
>Forum process which the US Government has 
>supported, and which is an important facet, we 
>believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
>We think the establishment of firm principles to 
>guide the evolution of a model is the 
>appropriate way to proceed. This should 
>explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global 
>governance institution with regulatory authority 
>over an industry (domain name registration) and 
>over critical resources (IP addresses, root 
>servers and addresses). The standards of due 
>process, rights, and accountability that apply 
>to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>
>
>
>Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for 
>the Internet Governance Caucus
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20090606/d2e17e1e/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  Sat Jun  6 08:03:16 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:03:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <D9C7B05C-8B3D-4816-AEB0-9B0F33CCC25C@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

I liked it better before, but yes.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to  
> submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support  
> for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous  
> draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of  
> email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for  
> this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the  
> meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider  
> simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly  
> about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil  
> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively  
> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed  
> during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society  
> (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy,  
> action, and for representation of civil society contributions in   
> Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with  
> a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition  
> can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project  
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS  
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out  
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a  
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non- 
> discriminatory Information Society”. We also recognise the need for  
> high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to  
> ensure Internet stability and security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly  
> believes that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition  
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they  
> have equitable arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject  
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.  
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA  
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an  
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be  
> resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the  
> other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the  
> JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take  
> on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes  
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework,  
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an  
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe  
> that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in  
> ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an  
> undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or  
> some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow.  
> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they  
> cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The  
> principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil  
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate  
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,  
> democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with  
> multistakeholder management, which has evolved from the World Summit  
> on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process  
> which the US Government has supported, and which is an important  
> facet, we believe, of effective internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution  
> of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly  
> recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with  
> regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and  
> over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses).  
> The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply  
> to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet  
> Governance Caucus
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/35323c20/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  Sat Jun  6 08:14:13 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:14:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and  
others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's  
earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief  
beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of  
experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and  
this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?)  
fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.

Best,

Bill

On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>
> 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. We feel however, that 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.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is  
> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of  
> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might  
> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to  
> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions  
> instead of discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>
>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it  
>> seems to
>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is  
>> capitalized)
>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in  
>> the way
>> I am suggesting...
>>
>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to,  
>> greater use
>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability  
>> communities,
>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners."  
>> or there
>> should be no examples.
>>
>> MBG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05,  
>> 2009 11:22 AM
>> To: gurstein
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest  
>> version
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>
>> 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. We feel however,  
>> that 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.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about  
>> the lack of
>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the  
>> inclusion of
>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with  
>> the
>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum  
>> driven by
>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>>
>>> 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. 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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. However, the IGC is  
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of  
>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be  
>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to  
>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by  
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest  
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for  
>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the  
>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim.  
>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been  
>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up,  
>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>
>>> 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 its  
>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism  
>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved  
>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on  
>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned  
>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF  
>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively  
>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jun  6 09:18:27 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat,  6 Jun 2009 06:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for
In-Reply-To: A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch
Message-ID: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>

Bill,

>With the IGF up for renewal and China and others pressing to kill it, ...

I promise you the IGF will not die, true UN funding may cease, but the IGF will
continue.  Who knows maybe it will be picked up by ICANN itself.

If the UN sheds-off the IGF (mainly to reduce cost), there will always be an
online home for the IGF.

Getting rid of the UN would be like getting rid of the JPA, The IGF would be
free of that constraint (i.e.: China et. al.  etc...).
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Jun  6 10:48:25 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:48:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>

Hi,

I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as it 
focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.

The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this context:

However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

jeanette



William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) fault.  
> I don't see how this is helpful.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>
>> 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. We feel however, 
>> that 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.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
>> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>> seems to
>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>> capitalized)
>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>> the way
>>> I am suggesting...
>>>
>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>> greater use
>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>> communities,
>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or 
>>> there
>>> should be no examples.
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>> To: gurstein
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>
>>> 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. We feel however, 
>>> that 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.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>> lack of
>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>> inclusion of
>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>> driven by
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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. However, the IGC is 
>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>>> instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>>>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may 
>>>> we take your silence for assent?
>>>>
>>>> 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 its 
>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in 
>>>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>>>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>>>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 14:52:07 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:22:07 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>

Ok, obviously the statement is not clear, as it should not be having 
these reactions.

I see this statement as 100% overwhelmingly supportive of the IGF 
process, so much so that we do not feel a review is necessary, but that 
we can go right on to trying to continually improve. The IGC has 
indicated in an earlier statement that:

"The process of consultations should especially keep in mind 
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, 
such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil 
society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues 
like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be 
specifically approached."

The response to this in the May OC was that we cannot include people who 
know nothing about the IGF process in the review of the IGF process. But 
the IGC did agree on the above quoted statement, which leads me to the 
conclusion that lesser heard voices with lower participation are a 
concern for the IGC. Giving those groups a voice in the IGF process in 
fact, seems to me to be a primary concern.

Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re-read 
your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new statement 
as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very important point 
about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to be dense. What am I 
missing?





William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>
>> 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. We 
>> feel however, that 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.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is 
>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create 
>> an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
>> discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>> seems to
>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>> capitalized)
>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>> the way
>>> I am suggesting...
>>>
>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>> greater use
>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>> communities,
>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>> or there
>>> should be no examples.
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>> To: gurstein
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>
>>> 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. We feel however, 
>>> that 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.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>> lack of
>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>> inclusion of
>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>> driven by
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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. However, the IGC is 
>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>>> instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may 
>>>> we take your silence for assent?
>>>>
>>>> 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 its 
>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in 
>>>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>>>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and 
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental 
>>>> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 14:56:10 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:10 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>

Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:

We are trying to say two things:

1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one of 
our goals should be to include more minority groups.

2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.

Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
objections?

Thanks! Best,
Ginger



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as 
> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>
> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
> context:
>
> However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
>> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>
>>> 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. We feel however, that 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.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is 
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might 
>>> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>> instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>>> seems to
>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>> capitalized)
>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>>> the way
>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>
>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>>> greater use
>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>> communities,
>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>> or there
>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>>> To: gurstein
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>> version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>
>>>> 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. We feel however, 
>>>> that 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.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of
>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by
>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. However, the IGC is 
>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, 
>>>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 its 
>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF 
>>>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  6 15:05:16 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:05:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EC745CE88CAC492CB6833D663D1DFBBA@userPC>

As a corollary to your point #1 below could I add that we are also concerned
that the additional issues those unheard voices might identify are
introduced into the discussion--although this latter point perhaps need not
be included in the statement.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus


Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:

We are trying to say two things:

1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one of 
our goals should be to include more minority groups.

2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.

Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
objections?

Thanks! Best,
Ginger



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as
> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>
> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter
> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
> context:
>
> However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and
>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
>> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>
>>> 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. We feel however, that 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.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is 
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might 
>>> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>> instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it
>>>> seems to
>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>> capitalized)
>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>>> the way
>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>
>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to,
>>>> greater use
>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>> communities,
>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>> or there
>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05,
>>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>>> To: gurstein
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>> version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>
>>>> 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. We feel however, 
>>>> that 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.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of
>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by
>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. However, the IGC is 
>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>> version (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, 
>>>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 its 
>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF 
>>>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

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


From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Sat Jun  6 15:40:43 2009
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:40:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Reminder - IV GigaNet Annual Symposium, Egypt (CFP) -
 Deadline: June 30 -
In-Reply-To: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail>
References: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail>
Message-ID: <18EEE79913754418A874BAF6889AA0F8@Raquelnote>

(Sorry for cross-posting but might be of interested to some of you...)

Dear Colleagues,

The Giganet Program Committee is pleased to announce that keynote speakers for the Symposium have been confirmed as a joint presentation named "Beyond Denial: Introducing the Next Generation of Internet Controls" from Ronald J. Deibert, Professor and Director, The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto and Rafal Rohozinski: CEO at Psiphon inc, Principal and CEO at The SecDev Group, Ottawa, Canada. 

Please also remind that the deadline for submitting abstracts of research papers to IV Giganet Annual Symposium is June 30. The updated version of CFP is attached and online at:  http://giganet.igloogroups.org/2009annual/cfpdraft3p


Looking forward to receiving your contributions!

Best Regards,

Raquel Gatto
GigaNet Program Committee Chair

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: raquelgatto 
  Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:43 PM
  Subject: [governance] IV GigaNet Annual Symposium, Egypt - Call for Papers




  (Sorry for cross-posting but might be of interested to some of you...)

  Dear All,

  On behalf of the Program Committee, we are pleased to announce the Call for Papers to the IV Annual Giganet Sympoium which will take place on November 14, 2009 - one day before the IV UN Internet Governance Forum, in Sharm-El Sheik, Egypt.

  Based on the successful experiences in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007) and India (2008), we seek quality scholar's submissions to value our event. The deadline for submitting abstracts is June 30.

  Please find below and enclosed the CFP in pdf version, which is also available at:

  http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/4thgiganet/giganetcal

  If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me immediately.

  Hope to receive your contributions soon!

  Best Regards,

  Raquel Gatto

  GigaNet Program Committee Chair



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


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, 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/20090606/1d59683f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Giganet - Call for Papers 2009 version 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/1d59683f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Jun  6 15:48:29 2009
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:18:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
 Against VeriSign
Message-ID: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>

From:
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cfit_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>

Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign
Jun 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT

By John Levine

Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet
Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN meeting,
and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their monopoly control
of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring .COM domains. They
didn't do very well in the trial court, which granted Verisign's motion
to dismiss the case. But yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial
court and put the suit back on track.

In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court that
the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign engaged
in a variety of predatory conduct including financial pressure,
astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to renew
the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is in
practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price increases. As
part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid ICANN several
million dollars, and promised never to lobby against ICANN again.

In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's
claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring
domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet
Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to them.
They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a separate
market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since the domain
market has evolved a lot since then.

CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals court
found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to look at
them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or continue. But
the case with respect to .COM definitely is going ahead.

This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there
were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3
per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge
embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or
both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the
most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit ICANN
was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now they're
just an uncomfortable observer.

Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They get a
fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign
currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still
get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,
there'd be a lot more registrations.

CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer
just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this
surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as
opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by
Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that does
a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular domain
sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a great fan
of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I look forward to
the progress of this suit, not the least for the interesting documents
that are likely to appear in the discovery stage. 

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/21853132/attachment.sig>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 16:25:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 23:25:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 
In-Reply-To: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>
References: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>

All,

If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.

Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.

If you feel you must, then at the very least,
make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> From:
>  <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cfit_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
>
>  Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign
>  Jun 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
>
>  By John Levine
>
>  Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet
>  Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN meeting,
>  and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their monopoly control
>  of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring .COM domains. They
>  didn't do very well in the trial court, which granted Verisign's motion
>  to dismiss the case. But yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial
>  court and put the suit back on track.
>
>  In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court that
>  the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign engaged
>  in a variety of predatory conduct including financial pressure,
>  astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to renew
>  the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is in
>  practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price increases. As
>  part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid ICANN several
>  million dollars, and promised never to lobby against ICANN again.
>
>  In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's
>  claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring
>  domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet
>  Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to them.
>  They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a separate
>  market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since the domain
>  market has evolved a lot since then.
>
>  CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals court
>  found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to look at
>  them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or continue. But
>  the case with respect to .COM definitely is going ahead.
>
>  This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there
>  were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3
>  per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge
>  embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or
>  both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the
>  most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit ICANN
>  was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now they're
>  just an uncomfortable observer.
>
>  Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They get a
>  fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign
>  currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still
>  get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,
>  there'd be a lot more registrations.
>
>  CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer
>  just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this
>  surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as
>  opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
>  other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
>  Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by
>  Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that does
>  a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular domain
>  sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a great fan
>  of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I look forward to
>  the progress of this suit, not the least for the interesting documents
>  that are likely to appear in the discovery stage.
>
>
>  --
>  Pranesh Prakash
>  Programme Manager
>  Centre for Internet and Society
>  W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Jun  6 16:53:06 2009
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:23:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica> <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2AD732.8030103@cis-india.org>

McTim wrote:
> All,
> 
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
> 
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
> 
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
> 

Sorry about that.  In the past there has been much talk on this list
about ICANN's monopoly, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter recently posted[1] an
article in which the VeriSign-ICANN dispute was mentioned.  I thought
that this would be a useful follow-up of the FYI-kind (since the
VeriSign-ICANN settlement has a direct impact on this antitrust case
against VeriSign).  Do people on this list have any thoughts about this
case?  I'd be most interested in knowing.

[1] <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-05/msg00087.html>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/25e0eedb/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Jun  6 17:00:25 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:00:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <4A2AD732.8030103@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi, 

I welcome posts that I might have read elsewhere if people think the subject
is worth discussing here.

 


On 7/06/09 6:53 AM, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> McTim wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
>> 
>> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
>> 
>> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
>> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
>> 
> 
> Sorry about that.  In the past there has been much talk on this list
> about ICANN's monopoly, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter recently posted[1] an
> article in which the VeriSign-ICANN dispute was mentioned.  I thought
> that this would be a useful follow-up of the FYI-kind (since the
> VeriSign-ICANN settlement has a direct impact on this antitrust case
> against VeriSign).  Do people on this list have any thoughts about this
> case?  I'd be most interested in knowing.
> 
> [1] <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-05/msg00087.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:13:24 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:13:24 +0500
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>

Yes from me again.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
> our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
> a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
> arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
> to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
> The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
> management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
> Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
> has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
> internet governance  arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
> model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
> that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
> an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
> addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
> rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
> facts in mind.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro  Sat Jun  6 17:14:41 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:14:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <83A1A214-EAAD-4E87-ABFB-EEA816815923@internet.law.pro>

Take a look at the decision itself (short URL at http://bret.net/COMAntitrust 
  ), which contains some nice wording about ICANN.

"[T]the Supreme Court has held that an entity may be prosecuted for...  
improper coercion of a standards-setting body. ...CFIT has essentially  
alleged that ICANN is a private standards-setting body.... ICANN  
administers the DNS and is responsible for entering into agreements  
with registry operators like VeriSign. According to the complaint,  
ICANN’s mission includes a commitment to promoting competition for the  
contracts. ....We hold, therefore, that ....CFIT has adequately  
alleged that VeriSign’s improper coercion of ICANN and attempts to  
control ICANN’s operations in its own favor violated [U.S. Antitrust  
Laws]."

There's a nice citation to a Michael Froomkin article in the middle of  
that quote in the opinion. Personally I think this ruling strengthens  
ICANN, and ICANN's independence, as it plainly says that if you abuse  
the ICANN process to gain an anti-competitive advantage, you run afoul  
of U.S. laws.

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:40:52 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:40:52 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906061440p2d27e9eby8f1cef484361729f@mail.gmail.com>

True, the IGF as an open dialogue forum for Internet Governance is yet
to mature as a stage for international cooperation for compliance and
that gives it uniqueness to be continued. I am sure that if the UN
gives it up, the EU is already geared to do something in the sphere of
Internet Internet Governance. This is a mutlistakeholder process and
if one multilateral process falls out of place, there are other
systems in place to take over this important arena of Internet
affairs.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Yehuda Katz<yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:
> Bill,
>
>>With the IGF up for renewal and China and others pressing to kill it, ...
>
> I promise you the IGF will not die, true UN funding may cease, but the IGF will
> continue.  Who knows maybe it will be picked up by ICANN itself.
>
> If the UN sheds-off the IGF (mainly to reduce cost), there will always be an
> online home for the IGF.
>
> Getting rid of the UN would be like getting rid of the JPA, The IGF would be
> free of that constraint (i.e.: China et. al.  etc...).
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:47:35 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:47:35 -0700
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>

Hi,

I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional interest
in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the occasional
background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be extremely
valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my mind, fit
within that category. 

Especially in light of current/recent discussons.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 


All,

If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.

Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.

If you feel you must, then at the very least,
make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> From:  
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cf
> it_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
>
>  Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign  Jun 
> 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
>
>  By John Levine
>
>  Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet  
> Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN 
> meeting,  and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their 
> monopoly control  of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring 
> .COM domains. They  didn't do very well in the trial court, which 
> granted Verisign's motion  to dismiss the case. But yesterday the 
> Ninth Circuit reversed the trial  court and put the suit back on 
> track.
>
>  In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court 
> that  the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign 
> engaged  in a variety of predatory conduct including financial 
> pressure,  astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to 
> renew  the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is 
> in  practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price 
> increases. As  part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid 
> ICANN several  million dollars, and promised never to lobby against 
> ICANN again.
>
>  In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's  
> claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring  
> domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet  
> Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to 
> them.  They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a 
> separate  market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since 
> the domain  market has evolved a lot since then.
>
>  CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals 
> court  found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to 
> look at  them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or 
> continue. But  the case with respect to .COM definitely is going 
> ahead.
>
>  This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there  
> were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3  
> per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge  
> embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or  
> both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the  
> most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit 
> ICANN  was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now 
> they're  just an uncomfortable observer.
>
>  Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They 
> get a  fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign  
> currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still  
> get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,  
> there'd be a lot more registrations.
>
>  CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer  
> just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this  
> surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as  
> opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no  
> other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by  
> Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by  
> Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that 
> does  a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular 
> domain  sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a 
> great fan  of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I 
> look forward to  the progress of this suit, not the least for the 
> interesting documents  that are likely to appear in the discovery 
> stage.
>
>
>  --
>  Pranesh Prakash
>  Programme Manager
>  Centre for Internet and Society
>  W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  7 01:12:51 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:42:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
References: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A2B4C53.9030505@itforchange.net>

I agree. Pranesh's posting was quite relevant. We also need to be less 
rude to new (active) members, participating on the list.

parminder



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional interest
> in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the occasional
> background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be extremely
> valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my mind, fit
> within that category. 
>
> Especially in light of current/recent discussons.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
> Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 
>
>
> All,
>
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
>
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
>
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/126e048a/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 Jun  7 01:29:35 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:59:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu> <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2B503F.2050204@itforchange.net>

Ginger

Thanks for taking the initiative on this. As you will expect I am very 
supportive of the issues that the current statement takes up. I think 
IGF review should  be focusing on two things.

One, on ensuring substantive 'inclusive' participation, as opposed to 
just formal (which IGF's present architecture mostly ensures). This 
point is very well brought out by the present draft statement, and I 
very much agree with the detail it has gone into in this respect.

Secondly, the public policy impact, especially at global level, that IGF 
has made. This, in my opinion, was the purpose of creating the IGF - to 
help develop global IG policies and institutions. The review should 
obviously focus on this raison de' etre of the IGF. 'Participation' is 
meaningless without a context  of 'for what purpose' and  'towards what 
end'.

It will be good to go through numerous statements on the IGF that the 
IGC has developed, including the recent one specifically on the subject 
of review, and pull out all key points from these. I think the current 
context and opportunity is to get as much of our perspective as possible 
into the synthesis paper on the comments on the subject of IGF review 
which will be presented to the IGF at its annual meeting. Our effort 
should be directed by this imperative. And since there is time till 15th 
July to give our comments to be included in this synthesis paper, we can 
pull out important elements from our earlier submissions, as well have  
a good discussion on the subject on the list.

Thanks.

parminder




Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:
>
> We are trying to say two things:
>
> 1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
> included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
> thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
> involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one 
> of our goals should be to include more minority groups.
>
> 2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.
>
> Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
> objections?
>
> Thanks! Best,
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as 
>> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>>
>> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
>> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
>> context:
>>
>> However, the IGC is concerned about the
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
>> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
>> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
>>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating 
>>> and this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>>
>>>> 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. We feel however, that 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.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, 
>>>> the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the broader 
>>>> base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that 
>>>> they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the 
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>> Ginger,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>>>> seems to
>>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>>> capitalized)
>>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation 
>>>>> in the way
>>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>>
>>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>>>> greater use
>>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>>> communities,
>>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>>> or there
>>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 
>>>>> 05, 2009 11:22 AM
>>>>> To: gurstein
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>> version
>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. We feel however, 
>>>>> that 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>>> the lack of
>>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>>> inclusion of
>>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with 
>>>>> the
>>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>>> driven by
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MBG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. However, the IGC is 
>>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by 
>>>>>> McTim. Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have 
>>>>>> not been discussed or included in the statement. If you do not 
>>>>>> speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 its 
>>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the 
>>>>>> IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>   Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> ***********************************************************
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090607/2d85b800/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 Jun  7 02:35:00 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:05:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA
Message-ID: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>

IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA.

These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for 
here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US 
government, and not  merely an administrative change. Therefore, the 
principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the 
highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic 
governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the US 
government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these 
commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA 
comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the 
post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda 
that all have agreed to  -  the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We are 
a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are 
opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on the 
obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and 
legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create 
post-JPA oversight mechanisms.

Text of the proposed statement

Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we 
are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on 
issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in various 
global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President Obama in his 
address at the Cairo University attests to this refreshing approach 
which promises a new role for the US in managing our collective global 
affairs, and a new perception of the US among other countries and people.

"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear 
weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek 
a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."

It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes that 
a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by the US 
is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic' image of 
the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly called as 
'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World Summit on the 
Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a signatory, 
recognized this as the application of 'principle of universality' for 
Internet governance. The summit asserted that that 'all governments 
should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet 
governance'. 'The international management of the Internet should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations'.

The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be 
initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight 
mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have 
been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently, it 
is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful 
signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at present, 
including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new approach of 
Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin the process of 
'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate oversight 
mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that address the 
legitimate interests of all countries and people, including of the US.

As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any 
oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led regulatory 
system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of self-regulation 
in areas of key public interest have been shown by the recent banking 
fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the world. We are 
therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require external oversight.

The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter 
into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to 
start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles 
on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management 
of critical Internet resources' (as agreed at the WSIS) and also 
developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over ICANN, 
in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as called 
for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral, transparent and 
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private 
sector, civil society and international organizations'.


(text ends)


parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/cdefea7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Jun  7 02:50:23 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:50:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>	
 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240800c6511145cee0@[192.168.1.86]>

>On 6/5/09, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>>  Mike,
>>
>>   Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I had
>>  heard earlier.
>
>it's in the annual report or the budget, one of the latest docs
>anyway.  I can't recall the name, but it's Ozzie fer sure mate!


Twomey and Magaziner have been involved in a consulting company for 
many years -- ArgoPacific. Magaziner  lead e-commerce policy for the 
US, Twomey the same for AU govt.  So... "Argo P at cific is a high level 
international consulting firm specialising in the Internet and 
digital economy sectors" (cute use of @ mark...)

Australian registered.  Known about, no secret. It was Twomey's 
employer when he left the Australian govt (some might remember he 
stayed on as GAC chair as a kind of honorary Ambassador even thou 
private sector.)

ICANN has been clear about the "surplus" in it's budget.  It's trying 
to build a half-year operational reserve.  Seems a good idea to me.

Adam



>--
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Jun  7 04:17:31 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:17:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240806c65127710119@[192.168.1.86]>

Yes from me too.

Sorry for silence during the comment period. 
Might have been helpful to say in the intro about 
the IGC that many members are are active 
participants and volunteers in the ICANN process.

Adam


>Yes from me again.
>
>On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>  Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
>>  by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
>>  statement ­ if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
>>  is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
>>  am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
>>  in the next 48 hours.
>>
>>  At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
>>  emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
>>  clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>>
>>  Thank you everyone for your participation!
>>
>>  DRAFT FOLLOWS
>>
>>
>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>  non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>  Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>  World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>  forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>  society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>  hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
>>  our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>>
>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
>>  Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>
>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>  principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>  according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>  people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>  Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>  co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>  security.
>>
>>  On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
>>  that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
>>  a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
>>  arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
>>  procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
>>  believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
>>  viable solution.
>>
>>   Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>  mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>  a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>  a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
>>  ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>>
>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
>>  of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
>>  transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>>  Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>>  certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>>  We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>>  in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
>>  principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as
>>  to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>  The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>
>>
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>  interests and Internet users
>>
>  >
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>
>>
>>  ·      transparency
>>
>>
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>
>>
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>>  which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>
>>
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>
>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
>>  management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
>>  Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
>>  has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
>>  internet governance  arrangements.
>>
>>  We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>  model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>  that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over
>>  an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>  addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>  rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>  facts in mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
>>  Caucus
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>@skBajwa
>Answering all your technology questions
>http://www.askbajwa.com
>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 04:52:36 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <E21B746A-A55A-4496-92AD-262D9F243AC4@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> I welcome posts that I might have read elsewhere if people think the  
> subject
> is worth discussing here.

Of course.  Thanks for bring it to our attention Pranesh.  Don't be so  
cranky McTim, just use the delete key.

On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> Personally I think this ruling strengthens ICANN, and ICANN's  
> independence, as it plainly says that if you abuse the ICANN process  
> to gain an anti-competitive advantage, you run afoul of U.S. laws.

Congrats Bret on getting VeriSign in the dock.

Raises again the interesting question of the costs/benefits of being  
under US law and what the alternatives might be.  While ICANN's not  
going anywhere, it's at least interesting to consider from a  
institutional design standpoint.

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Jun  7 05:20:09 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:20:09 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240800c6511145cee0@[192.168.1.86]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

The whole hearing was an astonishing piece of ignorance by some US congress members and some US industry representatives with regard to legitimate interests of stakeholders and nations around the world. Look into the references of the study of the Technology Policy Institute (Lenard/White) - which was obviously the main source for members of the committee - and you get a clue what you can expect if these groups will get decision making power over the future of Internet Governance ;-(((.    If this happens we will see another round of a global ideological battles over the future of the Internet with numerous unitended side effects, very counterproducitve both to the globnal Internet community and the US itself. The global view was totally ouf of the radar of the majority of the committee members and some of the panelists. What a gulf between the open eyes of the elected president and the narrow view of these group of people. 
 
Wolfgang
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jun  7 05:22:15 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:52:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
Message-ID: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>

Hi All

I see that 15th is the last date for final workshop proposals and 30th 
for speakers. IGC has two workshop proposals and we will need to work on 
this. Best to get working groups made for each. This is how it worked 
the last time.

Meanwhile there is a proposal in the program paper that some workshops 
that are sufficiently representative will be given longer time period - 
3 hours, with a view of possibly seeking some useful convergences of 
views. The precise language of the program paper is

"Merged workshops will be given the opportunity to bring their findings 
to the attention of the related main session. If sufficiently 
representative, merged workshops will be given three hour slots with the 
aim of providing an opportunity to identify a range of best practices."

I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality 
workshop with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3 hour 
slot. We can point to the fact that in at least one country (Norway) all 
stakeholders have been able to agree to set of NN principles, and it is 
worth making such efforts at the global level. At the least we can try 
to agree to some  basic set of principles that flow flow from the 
defining characteristics of 'openness' and 'neutrality' of the Internet.

In order to give our best to leverage the new format opened up, perhaps 
as a back up (since we have no proposed workshop on this subject) we can 
seek a 3 hour workshop on developing principles and best practices in IG 
in the area of disability rights - this would perhaps also complement 
the current work in WIPO on copyright exception for the disabled.

On  a different note, we should also put in a request for a booth in the 
IGF village for the IGC, last date fro which is 30th June. We took one 
in Hyderabad, but it was not advertised among members and did not get 
used. Such a booth is  a good meeting point for the caucus

parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/a9cf6871/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 Jun  7 05:52:52 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:52:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ginger

On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re- 
> read your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new  
> statement as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very  
> important point about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to  
> be dense. What am I missing?

I don't know.  But given the IGC's historical and current relationship  
to the IGF, one would like to think that an IGC statement about  
renewal could do more to reflect on the experience and make a case for  
why it's been innovative and important and merits support.  Merely  
stating at the end that

>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with  
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue

Is pretty underwhelming, especially when there are a number of  
important actors saying its value and effectiveness are not at all  
obvious.  I suspect it'll be renewed but could get bloodied a bit  
along the way, e.g. in ECOSOC, in ways that could affect the  
trajectory, so it'd be nice to be providing solid argumentation in  
support.

Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic  
criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed  
reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault--- 
the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point  
to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You  
can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/ 
global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be  
trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.  
as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of  
marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something  
concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not  
blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap  
shot as a main thrust.

It'd read differently in a broader and balanced statement about IGF's  
contributions to global understanding, dialogue etc on IG.  In this  
context, concluding with some points about things that the  
international community needs to address going forward would seem  
apt.  We could say something constructive about much more needing to  
be done to promote inclusion, we could raise the long standing  
concerns of some/many/all (unclear) of us that IGF should be more than  
an annual conference and have more capacity to actually deliver on the  
mandate, etc.  As with the JPA discussion, some structured debate and  
consensus building here on a more substantial text would seem doable,  
we have until July 15 to submit.  Why we should rush to agree on a  
short and inadequately worded statement that concentrates on a generic  
shortcoming of all policy processes is beyond me.

Hope that is clearer,

Bill


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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 06:00:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:00:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
	 <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
	 <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
	 <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906070300o1eb7576dq6a20e82d0d92891e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/7/09, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
<snip>
 Why we should rush to
> agree on a short and inadequately worded statement that concentrates on a
> generic shortcoming of all policy processes is beyond me.

Agree with all of the above.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 06:02:33 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:02:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder,

On Jun 7, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Parminder wrote:
> I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality  
> workshop with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3  
> hour slot. We can point to the fact that in at least one country  
> (Norway) all stakeholders have been able to agree to set of NN  
> principles, and it is worth making such efforts at the global level.  
> At the least we can try to agree to some  basic set of principles  
> that flow flow from the defining characteristics of 'openness' and  
> 'neutrality' of the Internet.

I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is  
part and parcel.  The issue is the telcos/manufacturers/ministries  
plans for the future of information infrastructure and the Internet by  
extension.

On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> It will be good to go through numerous statements on the IGF that  
> the IGC has developed, including the recent one specifically on the  
> subject of review, and pull out all key points from these. I think  
> the current context and opportunity is to get as much of our  
> perspective as possible into the synthesis paper on the comments on  
> the subject of IGF review which will be presented to the IGF at its  
> annual meeting. Our effort should be directed by this imperative.  
> And since there is time till 15th July to give our comments to be  
> included in this synthesis paper, we can pull out important elements  
> from our earlier submissions, as well have  a good discussion on the  
> subject on the list.

Saw this after replying to Ginger.  We agree again :-)  We have a  
month, let's do it right.

Best,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/b18dec87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 08:58:35 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:58:35 +0500
Subject: [governance] Updating Wikipedia.org section on Internet Governance
 Forum
Message-ID: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I wanted to invite more colleagues to join in updating the Internet
Governance Forum section on Wikipedia.org. The URL is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum

Information about the Hyderabad meeting, IGF review etc have to be 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 mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun  7 10:49:28 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:49:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
 <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is part and parcel.

It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/a5c1d80a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun  7 11:22:51 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:22:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
 <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
 <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
 <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> 
> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
> shot as a main thrust.


Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Jun  7 11:58:00 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:58:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Updating Wikipedia.org section on Internet 
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0906070858h2b093ba0l7780ad30298e1ce3@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the reminder, Fouad. It is actually up for some updates - just
the Hyderabad part. A few of us have started it before the Hyderabad meeting
so those parts prior to the Hyderabad are updated. I think the contents for
"III IGF Hyderabad 2008" have to be added.  I took the initiative and I have
placed the heading "III IGF Hyderabad 2008" so anyone can add some
information they want to from there.  The "Closing Session" (for the IGF Rio
2007) prior to the "III IGF Hyderabad 2008" have to be completed, too.
Maybe some can add a few lines there since I lack some information on that.

Rafik Dammak can also help with some information on the wikipedia
entry/update on the IGF. Thanks again.

Regards,
Charity

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I wanted to invite more colleagues to join in updating the Internet
> Governance Forum section on Wikipedia.org. The URL is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum
>
> Information about the Hyderabad meeting, IGF review etc have to be 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/20090607/0b4070f2/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 Jun  7 12:09:38 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:39:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com> <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A2BE642.1080906@gmail.com>

Milton said:

"Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen."

Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen".

This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review statements says:

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

However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity, so I have also separated that point as well.

I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for discussion and inclusion.

Re-organizeded version (previous version below):

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 its implementation of the principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. 

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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 multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.

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.



Previous statement:

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. We feel however, that 
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.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

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.



Milton L Mueller wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>
>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>> shot as a main thrust.
>>     
>
>
> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  7 12:38:15 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:38:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Milton,

On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
> placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it  
> is part and parcel.
>
> It is???? I hope not. That’s a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>

Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making  
the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they are--- 
replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to QOS  
and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the standards  
and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter that they  
are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use terminology  
they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter that they are  
doing these things? Or that taking note of the global trends is  
suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a peculiarly US- 
centric view of NN at work here...:-)

But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF  
context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a stand- 
alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a larger set  
of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the net going  
forward?

Cheers,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/b6b82d05/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  Sun Jun  7 12:39:23 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:39:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
Message-ID: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/ec4079af/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 muguet at mdpi.net  Sun Jun  7 12:54:36 2009
From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:54:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <4A2BF0CC.7030401@mdpi.net>

Dear Karl
>
>     There is no reason for the EU or the Arab League or Latin America 
> or China to care what a mess ICANN makes! They should make competitive 
> systems,
It is exactly what my proposal is all about, open the competition  to 
Namespaces services...
http://net4d.org

    * Competitive Governance Arrangements for Namespace Services
      <http://net4d.org/DOCS/muguet-eu-internet-hearing.html>   PDF file
      <http://net4d.org/DOCS/muguet-eu-internet-hearing.pdf> a written
      contribution to the EU Commission hearing on future Internet
      Governance arrangement
      <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm>
      ( Deadline 29 May 2009 )

    * Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure
      <http://net4d.org/net4d-geneva-may09.html> ( WSIS Forum, 20 May
      2009, Geneva )

strangely enough my contribution to the EU hearing is still not listed
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/submissions/index_en.htm
/Last updated: 03.6.2009/
>  Then, you would be REAL stakeholder and not just an unhappy user group.
Exactly, the Governance caucus should mature a little bit,
and cease to behave as user group,  be fair to all possibilities,
and at least quote the possibility of openning the competition
 through technical means like my proposal.

Best regards

Francis
>  
> -Karl E. Peters
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
>     From: "Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"
>     <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>     Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 5:20 am
>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
>     The whole hearing was an astonishing piece of ignorance by some US
>     congress members and some US industry representatives with regard
>     to legitimate interests of stakeholders and nations around the
>     world. Look into the references of the study of the Technology
>     Policy Institute (Lenard/White) - which was obviously the main
>     source for members of the committee - and you get a clue what you
>     can expect if these groups will get decision making power over the
>     future of Internet Governance ;-(((. If this happens we will see
>     another round of a global ideological battles over the future of
>     the Internet with numerous unitended side effects, very
>     counterproducitve both to the globnal Internet community and the
>     US itself. The global view was totally ouf of the radar of the
>     majority of the committee members and some of the panelists. What
>     a gulf between the open eyes of the elected president and the
>     narrow view of these group of people.
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

Département des Systèmes d'Information 
http://syinf.unige.ch
Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales
Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch
CUI, Bâtiment A
7 route de Drize
1227 Carouge

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web

NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/099f63a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdfIconMini.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/099f63a6/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 14:26:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:26:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906071126h1e2fc22an5aa15e557f5f2d9b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Karl,

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Karl E. Peters<kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
> All,  (Please hear me out before you delete!)

Now this is more like it, a real heart felt piece of opinion, not
content copied from elsewhere!

<snip>
> and responsible internet body? If each major population that has a stake in
> the internet actually invested in it, they would have what they want with
> FAR less trouble.

I have what I want, thanks very much.

Then, you would be REAL stakeholder and not just an
> unhappy user group.

speak for yourself. I am a real stakeholder, I have a real voice in
making the policies I am interested in.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From anriette at apc.org  Sun Jun  7 15:50:51 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:50:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>

Thanks for sending this Parminder. 

When you talk about the 'UN system' entering into an agreement with the
US and ICANN, which part of it did you have in mind?

And, on a related thought, I wonder if the ITU will be submitting
comment to the NTIA? 

Anriette

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 12:05 +0530, Parminder wrote:
> IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA. 
> 
> These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for
> here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US
> government, and not  merely an administrative change. Therefore, the
> principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the
> highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic
> governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the
> US government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these
> commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA
> comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the
> post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda
> that all have agreed to  -  the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We
> are a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are
> opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on
> the obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and
> legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create
> post-JPA oversight mechanisms.
> 
> Text of the proposed statement
> 
> Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we
> are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on
> issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in
> various global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President
> Obama in his address at the Cairo University attests to this
> refreshing approach which promises a new role for the US in managing
> our collective global affairs, and a new perception of the US among
> other countries and people. 
> 
> “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear
> weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to
> seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
> 
> It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes
> that a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by
> the US is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic'
> image of the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly
> called as 'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a
> signatory, recognized this as the application of 'principle of
> universality' for Internet governance. The summit asserted that that
> 'all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
> international Internet governance'. 'The international management of
> the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic,with
> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
> and international organizations'.
> 
> The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be
> initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight
> mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have
> been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently,
> it is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful
> signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at
> present, including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new
> approach of Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin
> the process of 'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate
> oversight mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that
> address the legitimate interests of all countries and people,
> including of the US. 
> 
> As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any
> oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led
> regulatory system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of
> self-regulation in areas of key public interest have been shown by the
> recent banking fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the
> world. We are therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require
> external oversight. 
> 
> The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter
> into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to
> start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles
> on public policy issues associated with the coordination and
> management of critical Internet resources'(as agreed at the WSIS) and
> also developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over
> ICANN, in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as
> called for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral,
> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,
> the private sector, civil society and international organizations'.
> 
> 
> (text ends)
> 
> 
> parminder 
> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 17:02:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:02:05 +1000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c65127710119@[192.168.1.86]>
Message-ID: <C65267ED.2D27%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Thanks everyone

While respecting that two members voted against this statement, sufficient
support has been given for it to be adopted. I will be posting the statement
as below today.



>>> 
>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>  non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>  Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>>  World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>>  forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>>  society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>>  hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
>>> about
>>>  our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>>> 
>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
>>>  Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>> 
>>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>  principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>  according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>  people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>  Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>  co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>  security.
>>> 
>>>  On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
>>>  that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
>>>  a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
>>>  arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
>>>  procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
>>>  believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
>>>  viable solution.
>>> 
>>>   Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>>  mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>>  a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>>  a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
>>>  ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>>> 
>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>> it
>>>  should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
>>> development
>>>  of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
>>>  transparent and inclusive process.
>>> 
>>>  Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>>>  certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>>>  We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>>>  in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
>>>  principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way
>>> as
>>>  to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>>  The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>> 
>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>  interests and Internet users
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      transparency
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>> model
>>>  which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>> 
>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>> multistakeholder
>>>  management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
>>>  Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
>>>  has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
>>>  internet governance  arrangements.
>>> 
>>>  We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>>  model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>>  that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
>>> over
>>>  an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>>  addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>>  rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>>  facts in mind.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
>>>  Caucus
>>> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  7 17:46:54 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:46:54 +1000
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2BE642.1080906@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Ginger, 

Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
Secretariat for its work to date".

(simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)



On 8/06/09 2:09 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milton said:
> 
> "Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or
> are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included
> -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could
> happen."
> 
> Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice
> to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF
> should continue so that could happen".
> 
> This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review
> statements says:
> 
> "In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in
> mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at
> present, including constituencies in developing counties including
> those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG
> issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also
> be especially reached out to."
> 
> However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from
> basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also
> think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and
> intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity,
> so I have also separated that point as well.
> 
> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for
> discussion and inclusion.
> 
> Re-organizeded version (previous version below):
> 
> 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 its implementation of the principle of
> multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
> 
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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
> multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of
> civil society, this principle has not yet 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.
> The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of
> possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be
> concerned to see addressed.
> 
> We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion,
> particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Previous statement:
> 
> 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. We feel however, that
> 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.
> 
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed,
> and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental
> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>> 
>>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>>> shot as a main thrust.
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
>> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal?
>> Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people
>> included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that
>> could happen.
>> 
>> 
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  7 18:09:20 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:09:20 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C65277B0.2D37%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

The clear merge here is with workshop proposal 184 on the same subject (net
neutrality) from Diplo Foundation (Vladimir Radunovic).
Ginger, given your associations there, can you approach them and see if they
are willing to merge? WE need to submit by June 15 so I guess this is fairly
urgent.


On 7/06/09 7:22 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> I see that 15th is the last date for final workshop proposals and 30th for
> speakers. IGC has two workshop proposals and we will need to work on this.
> Best to get working groups made for each. This is how it worked the last time.
> 
> Meanwhile there is a proposal in the program paper that some workshops that
> are sufficiently representative will be given longer time period - 3 hours,
> with a view of possibly seeking some useful convergences of views. The precise
> language of the program paper is
> 
> "Merged workshops will be given the opportunity to bring their findings to the
> attention of the related main session. If sufficiently representative, merged
> workshops will be given three hour slots with the aim of providing an
> opportunity to identify a range of best practices."
> 
> I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality workshop
> with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3 hour slot. We can
> point to the fact that in at least one country (Norway) all stakeholders have
> been able to agree to set of NN principles, and it is worth making such
> efforts at the global level. At the least we can try to agree to some  basic
> set of principles that flow flow from the defining characteristics of
> 'openness' and 'neutrality' of the Internet.
> 
> In order to give our best to leverage the new format opened up, perhaps as a
> back up (since we have no proposed workshop on this subject) we can seek a 3
> hour workshop on developing principles and best practices in IG in the area of
> disability rights - this would perhaps also complement the current work in
> WIPO on copyright exception for the disabled.
> 
> On  a different note, we should also put in a request for a booth in the IGF
> village for the IGC, last date fro which is 30th June. We took one in
> Hyderabad, but it was not advertised among members and did not get used. Such
> a booth is  a good meeting point for the caucus
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/43de2c9c/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 Jun  7 18:20:34 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:20:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
 Governance - The way forward from here (workshop 196)
Message-ID: <C6527A52.2D3B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
working group to run this workshop.

Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any suggestions
to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe we have to
improve that this week.

I don¹t see a natural merge for this workshop.

Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a
few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist,
whichever you prefer

Current proposal is below.

Ian Peter


Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from
 
Concise Description:
The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain
historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities
around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the
Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its
governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing
however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical
artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it
running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring
participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which
includes its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of
evolution and transnationalization of Internet governance from various
standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here.
 
The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of
what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along
with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 
 
Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
workshop fall under?
Critical Internet Resources
 
Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
If so, please provide the link to the report:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72
-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a
nd-sovereignty
 
Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
should organize it?
Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting
other players as appropriate
 
The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus
 
Contact Person: Ian Peter
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/c0859ea8/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Sun Jun  7 18:21:24 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:21:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
Message-ID: <4A2C3D64.3040905@peter-dambier.de>

Hello,

right during the eu-elections the website

piratenpartei.net

of the german pirates party gets censored by their
hoster alfahosting.info.

Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
Afraid of emails I guess.

Have a nice weekend
Peter

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 18:23:50 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:23:50 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop 197 - Network Neutrality - Exploring a
 global consensus on principles
Message-ID: <C6527B16.2D3E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Again we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
working group to run this workshop.

Details of our previous submission are below. Ive suggested in a separate
message we merge with Diplo workshop on the same subject. Ginger will
approach them 

We  have some suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this below. Can
we have a few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or
offlist, whichever you prefer

Current proposal is below.


Title: Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
 
Concise Description:
There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN
principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the
Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected
by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on
NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While
proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to
assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN,
especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN
debates.
 
Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
workshop fall under?
Openness
 
Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
If so, please provide the link to the report:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72
-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a
nd-sovereignty
 
Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
should organize it?
Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in
organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil
society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange
(India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers
Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific
countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles
that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out
additional developing country commentators in particular.
 
The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:Internet Governance Caucus
 
Contact Person: Ian Peter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/3d7164ff/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 Jun  7 21:03:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:03:05 +1000
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2C3D64.3040905@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
-090607/




According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
of state administration.

Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
sharing site, Pirate Bay?

This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
Interested in reports from those who know more.





On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> right during the eu-elections the website
> 
> piratenpartei.net
> 
> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
> hoster alfahosting.info.
> 
> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
> Afraid of emails I guess.
> 
> Have a nice weekend
> Peter


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

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Sun Jun  7 23:11:30 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 23:11:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning the TLDA
Message-ID: <874c02a20906072011v43cd517es8e191241abdfc766@mail.gmail.com>

Hello:

I noticed that Karl Peters the CFO at the TLDA (Top Level Domain
Association) has posted something concerning the TLDA.  I am a member of the
TLDA and have personal knowledge of the organization.

I disagree with the claims made by Mr. Peters to the governance list which
indicated the TLDA was mature.  The TLDA is only mature in one way - the
organization has been around since 1999.

http://www.icann.org/dnso/tlda.html

In the 10 years it has been in existence it has accomplished absolutely
nothing.

At this time the organizations directors are under contract to deliver on
their primary mandate as per TLDA bylaws.  The organization has till July
15th to full fill its obligations to the membership.  I'll let you know if
it does.

Until then please consider the TLDA an organization of clowns who have yet
to deliver.

I have attached below a note to Bradley Thornton, a TLDA director with my
comments concerning Karl's statement to governance for further information.

kindest regards
joe baptista

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Subject: Some Notes for Brad Re: [Members] [FWD: RE:[governance] US Congress
& the JPA]
To: members at tldainc.org, public at tldainc.org
Cc: tlda-members at googlegroups.com


Some notes for Brad

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Bradley D. Thornton <Bradley at northtech.us>wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> um... You say they are notorious for, "...ignoring anything that does not
> go along with their flow..."


Sounds a lot like the TLDA today.  These days I see a similarity between
ICANN and the TLDA.  Both entrenched camps are basically composed of quasi
civil servants.  ICANN civil servants have successful backgrounds.  TLDA
civil servant don't.  Half our board is either unemployed or unemployable
and in at least one case - both.  They mean well - but competence does
matter - and we need to upgrade to be taken seriously..


>
>
> I don't have the time right now, but I've learned a few tricks here and
> there. When you get a list that exudes this level of arrogance (First of all
> they're legends in their own minds, but that's beside the point),


so are we - whats your point.


> If three or four people with the unpopular agenda join the list and begin
> to generate traffic on the topics that are part of their own agenda (Some of
> us here remember the crispy-crocketts), eventually, those arrogant list
> members can't help but take the bait and begin to respond, as they just
> can't keep themselves from wanting to be in a conversation LOL!


No - the TLDA is not ready to exclude itself from the arrogant list of
characters.  I agree there.

I suggest Brad - you listen carefully to your membership.

Before the TLDA begins making advances to the community it must get it's
house in order and produce a TapRoot.  The deadline for that is coming up on
July 15th.  Thats the agreement the board entered into.  The technical
aspects of the Taproot and all required policy to effect decisions of the
compliance committee and the publication of a recommended list of TLDs.
This must be in place as of July 15th.

I would ask that you focus on that.


>
> Like I said, I don't have the time right now, but I would really love to
> participate and help get our mission and its significance out there in a
> discussion on such a list ;)


Some other time Brad.  Right now your under obligation to produce.  And your
first deadline is July 15th.  Your next deadline is  October 15th.  Thats
when you must have in place the means to represent us at ICANN.

I will now ask the board to please have Karl Peters refrain from
representing the TLDA on any list outside the TLDA.  Karl has been involved
in some serious legal issues with the TLDA.  He has lost all our records.
He falsified our bylaws.  He broke board confidentiality and went on a libel
and slander campaign against me.  It's all in the archives.

This is not the sort of person I want representing my interests as a TLDA
member at ICANN or any governance list.  We have a president who can do a
better job of it. When it comes to piling on the bull shit in the executive
trade - he is the best at that.

I am of course the best at exposing the bullshit.  But of all the TLDA
people - Gene Marsh our el presidente - is the least dirty from the HEX
incident that has competence in the executive foyer or any TLDA issue.  Gene
knows when to keep his mouth shut.

O.K. Karl - please lay of the representation.  May I suggest that all
correspondence from you representing the TLDA be first vetted by the
president who can then send it one under his name.

Please Karl - try to comply - because it's embarrassing to see this fraud
continue.

kindest regards
joe baptista




>
>
> Karl E. Peters wrote:
>
>> This post was what I responded on the "governance" list with regard to the
>> US congress' handling of internet matters. This group is notorious for
>> ignoring anything that does not go along with their flow, but I wanted to
>> share my comments here so you could see some of the fun I have on the other
>> lists. The issues dealt with here, however, are the highest calling of a
>> body like the TLDA, and part of what we should be prepared to step up and
>> do. While we sometimes feel we are striving to grow from a little club to a
>> little larger club, there is a real place and need for some group like us.
>> We must decide if we are to step up and be that group...
>> -Karl
>>  My post follows:
>>    -------- Original Message --------
>>    Subject: RE:[governance] US Congress & the JPA
>>    From: "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>
>>    Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 12:39 pm
>>    To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Kleinwächter,Wolfgang"
>>    <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>
>>    All,  (Please hear me out before you delete!)
>>        The main responsibility of the US congress as relates to the
>>    internet is to protect the interests of the American people and
>>    the resources the nation has deployed. (granted, it often does a
>>    poor job of that, too!) It is important to note, especially for
>>    the large number of you outside the USA, that there is absolutely
>>    nothing to prevent you from establishing your own national or
>>    regional server systems and forging alliances with others as they
>>    benefit your people. In such a world, the cultural norms of each
>>    nation or region can be addressed without concern of conflict with
>>    the norms of another region. Each can exercise the "net
>>    neutrality" it finds appropriate in its system and in its region
>>    and the systems can all hold the Top Level Domains they wish to
>>    and add some that would be of particular regional interest without
>>    having to go through long and very expensive hassles with ICANN
>>    each time. The only things needed to make a multi-system internet
>>    work is a body to prevent potential naming collisions on what
>>    would then be a wider and more diverse namespace. The TLDA, Inc.
>>    (http://www.tldainc.org/) is a non-profit organization set up and
>>    now maturing so as to be able to provide this TLD research and
>>    coordination and other related services for the many current and
>>    future root systems of the world, allowing each to thrive in its
>>    own way, and yet protecting all of them from potential collisions
>>    in the event that other systems would want to carry their regional
>>    TLDs as well as their own.
>>        Remember the original meaning of "internet", the
>>    inter-relationship of many networks for the common good. ICANN's
>>    self-serving policy is a stone around the neck of the American
>>    people, and MUST seem even worse for other nations and cultures
>>    wanting to see a vibrant and living internet name space. Why spend
>>    all your time trying to push the ICANN mountain when you can
>>    reasonably build your own highways and bi-ways in your own regions
>>    and tie them together where it is beneficial to your people and
>>    remain aloof in some other areas if that is best for your system
>>    and people. Much of the world has complained for years of American
>>    control over such resources as the internet. Why? Why not build
>>    their own and make it flourish ans serve their people as they see fit?
>>        There is no reason for the EU or the Arab League or Latin
>>    America or China to care what a mess ICANN makes! They should make
>>    competitive systems, each fitting their region's cultural needs,
>>    and tie them together where it makes sense by carrying some of the
>>    same TLDs and perhaps not some others, all by local choice. Why
>>    not turn the conversation to what everyone else can do to make a
>>    better internet, and NOT just on how to twist and force ICANN into
>>    being what it can not understand how to be, a responsive and
>>    responsible internet body? If each major population that has a
>>    stake in the internet actually invested in it, they would have
>>    what they want with FAR less trouble. Then, you would be REAL
>>    stakeholder and not just an unhappy user group.
>>        -Karl E. Peters
>>
>>        -------- Original Message --------
>>        Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
>>        From: "Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"
>>        <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>        Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 5:20 am
>>        To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>        The whole hearing was an astonishing piece of ignorance by
>>        some US congress members and some US industry representatives
>>        with regard to legitimate interests of stakeholders and
>>        nations around the world. Look into the references of the
>>        study of the Technology Policy Institute (Lenard/White) -
>>        which was obviously the main source for members of the
>>        committee - and you get a clue what you can expect if these
>>        groups will get decision making power over the future of
>>        Internet Governance ;-(((. If this happens we will see another
>>        round of a global ideological battles over the future of the
>>        Internet with numerous unitended side effects, very
>>        counterproducitve both to the globnal Internet community and
>>        the US itself. The global view was totally ouf of the radar of
>>        the majority of the committee members and some of the
>>        panelists. What a gulf between the open eyes of the elected
>>        president and the narrow view of these group of people.
>>
>>        Wolfgang
>>
>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>        To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>        For all list information and functions, see:
>>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>    To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>    For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at tldainc.org
>> http://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_tldainc.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Manager Network Services
> NorthTech Computer
> TEL: +1.949.544.1931
> http://NorthTech.US
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at tldainc.org
> http://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_tldainc.org
>



-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com



-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/f8ad77ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun  7 23:20:06 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 23:20:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN proceeding
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments. 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html 
------

"The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
- President Barack Obama, 2008

ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire, and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead, the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.

Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands 
Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of Information Studies 
Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands 
Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs 
Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  8 00:04:48 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 00:04:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
 <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is "part and parcel" of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean is that phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being neutral, which may be true, and is certainly important if it is. I still don't know what you meant by "...of which it is part and parcel."

________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Governance List
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops

Hi Milton,

On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:



I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is part and parcel.

It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN


Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they are---replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to QOS and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the standards and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter that they are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use terminology they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter that they are doing these things? Or that taking note of the global trends is suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a peculiarly US-centric view of NN at work here...:-)

But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a stand-alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a larger set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the net going forward?

Cheers,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/c402110d/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 Jun  8 00:30:29 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:00:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net> <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>


Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Thanks for sending this Parminder. 
>
> When you talk about the 'UN system' entering into an agreement with the
> US and ICANN, which part of it did you have in mind?
>   
Anriette

This has deliberately been kept vague so that a range of options remain 
open. It is clear to us that whether it is an external oversight or 
accountability framework, it can only be mediated through a UN body. 
With all our problems with the UN, it is still the only legitimate 
global governance system. After all the human rights framework is also 
UN. We were afraid that mentioning any particular body now would shift 
the debate to the merits of that particular body doing this. At present 
the issue is for the US gov to accept to commit itself to move towards 
legitimate multilateralism in the spirit of WSIS documents. Once such 
political will is established, the right way forward can always be 
figured out. We do expect the US to do some hard bargaining and keep 
some/ considerable leverage on how things move forward.

I think it has to be some place in the ECOSOC; am not too good on this 
kind of stuff. UN SG's office do not have the substantive capacity I 
think, or may be I am wrong.  However, I am very sure it cannot and 
should not be the ITU. ITU is not based on core democratic principles of 
broad public interest governance, and its structures are more like a 
standards body, which it was supposed to be. Also it is important to 
appreciate that we are not talking about replacing ICANN, in which case 
ITU may figure, but about political oversight of ICANN, which has to be 
much broader but less busy public policy/ governance system. ICANN, with 
due modifications, should keep doing the technical management functions 
it does at present.
 

regards

parminder

> And, on a related thought, I wonder if the ITU will be submitting
> comment to the NTIA? 
>
> Anriette
>
> On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 12:05 +0530, Parminder wrote:
>   
>> IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA. 
>>
>> These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for
>> here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US
>> government, and not  merely an administrative change. Therefore, the
>> principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the
>> highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic
>> governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the
>> US government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these
>> commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA
>> comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the
>> post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda
>> that all have agreed to  -  the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We
>> are a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are
>> opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on
>> the obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and
>> legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create
>> post-JPA oversight mechanisms.
>>
>> Text of the proposed statement
>>
>> Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we
>> are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on
>> issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in
>> various global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President
>> Obama in his address at the Cairo University attests to this
>> refreshing approach which promises a new role for the US in managing
>> our collective global affairs, and a new perception of the US among
>> other countries and people. 
>>
>> “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear
>> weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to
>> seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
>>
>> It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes
>> that a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by
>> the US is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic'
>> image of the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly
>> called as 'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World
>> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a
>> signatory, recognized this as the application of 'principle of
>> universality' for Internet governance. The summit asserted that that
>> 'all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
>> international Internet governance'. 'The international management of
>> the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic,with
>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
>> and international organizations'.
>>
>> The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be
>> initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight
>> mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have
>> been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently,
>> it is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful
>> signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at
>> present, including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new
>> approach of Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin
>> the process of 'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate
>> oversight mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that
>> address the legitimate interests of all countries and people,
>> including of the US. 
>>
>> As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any
>> oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led
>> regulatory system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of
>> self-regulation in areas of key public interest have been shown by the
>> recent banking fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the
>> world. We are therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require
>> external oversight. 
>>
>> The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter
>> into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to
>> start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles
>> on public policy issues associated with the coordination and
>> management of critical Internet resources'(as agreed at the WSIS) and
>> also developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over
>> ICANN, in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as
>> called for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral,
>> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,
>> the private sector, civil society and international organizations'.
>>
>>
>> (text ends)
>>
>>
>> parminder 
>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/2c3f9838/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  Mon Jun  8 03:42:18 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:42:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Milton,

Not sure what the disconnect is here.  NGN is a term used in industry  
and policy circles world wide to characterize the shift underway from  
PSTNs to IP-based convergent nets with new architectures and service  
provisioning models.  An important part of those new models, if the  
carriers get their way, is to abandon NN, ergo my characterization of  
the issues as part and parcel of the NGN shift.  Some observers say  
that NGNs could provide the technical means to monitor and manage  
traffic in such a manner that all applications are treated on a  
nondiscriminatory basis, but that doesn't appear the to be preference  
of the carriers making the investments.  And they're getting their way  
in various places; governments like the UK's have specifically  
rejected NN as a barrier to NGN development.  So I was simply  
suggesting we might want to consider NN in the context of the larger  
transformation underway.

I've moaned here on and off for years about the apparent aversion to  
assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom industry,  
including its global governance, on the Internet and IG.  It really  
puzzles me that we would treat a katrillion dollar industry that  
controls much of the underlying infrastructure as somehow irrelevant,  
particularly after all the (semi-coherent) discussions of  
international interconnection charging and such in WSIS and beyond.   
The singular obsession with ICANN---not so much what ICANN actually  
does, the issues it addresses, but rather what it is or represents  
institutionally---seems to blot out interest in other issues and  
leaves the ministries and industry to merrily go there way without any  
public interest advocacy as a countervailing force beyond purely  
national discussions.  Since we can't or don't participate in most of  
the international spaces where this stuff goes on, why would we not  
want to use the opportunities provided by the IGF to explore these  
dynamics, especially when they're directly relevant to the focus of  
the workshop?

Whatever...dead horse duly beaten, back to our regular programming...

Cheers,

Bill



On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is “part  
> and parcel” of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean is that  
> phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being neutral, which may  
> be true, and is certainly important if it is. I still don’t know  
> what you meant by “…of which it is part and parcel.”
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
> placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it  
> is part and parcel.
>
> It is???? I hope not. That’s a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>
>
> Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making  
> the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they are--- 
> replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to QOS  
> and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the standards  
> and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter that  
> they are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use  
> terminology they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter  
> that they are doing these things? Or that taking note of the global  
> trends is suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a  
> peculiarly US-centric view of NN at work here...:-)
>
> But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF  
> context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a stand- 
> alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a larger  
> set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the net  
> going forward?
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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/20090608/53d6cbe0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 03:46:35 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:46:35 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
	 <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906080046j640c41edhce1599d7db5db93f@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:42 AM, William
Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi Milton,
<snip>
, why would we not want to use
> the opportunities provided by the IGF to explore these dynamics, especially
> when they're directly relevant to the focus of the workshop?

Agree with all you say Bill, we focus on ICANN WAY too much, but
ignore MUCH bigger issues because of our obsessive compulsive
disorder.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 03:58:53 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:28:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <C65277B0.2D37%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
	 <C65277B0.2D37%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906080058p41ded8aes1ef427101f59d52c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

ISOC India Chennai has proposed these four workshops. If the topics interest
the IGC and the Caucus participants,  these workshops could be jointly
organized.

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


 *Title: *Roundtable: Balancing Security and Privacy Concerns

 *Concise Description:*
Privacy and Security concerns are often seen as conflicting concerns as each
side often tends to be overwhelmed by its own concerns. On a deeper level,
even the most activist privacy proponents would desire a Secure Internet
relatively free of electronic dangers. At the same time, those who
apparently appear to disregard privacy concerns would acknowledge the need
for privacy to the necessary degree. This round table is proposed to bring
together the strong and moderate proponents of Security and Privacy and
encourage a free and unrestrained debate to look for convergence in some
areas between the two divided sides.

*If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
should organize it?*
To approach some of the Internet pioneers known for their commitment to
Internet values. To extend invitations to those from Law and Order, Banking,
Online Commerce and Civil Society Security advocates on the one side and to
extend invitations to Privacy Groups, Privacy Lawyers and Foundations as
also to organizations committed to preserving the values of privacy and
freedom. This workshop would define the concerns of each side and identify
points on which there could be agreement between the apparently conflicting
interests.

*The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:*ISOC India Chennai


http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=144

 *Title: *Children Online: The promises of the Internet and the necessary
aspects for Online Safety

 *Concise Description:*
Internet is a permeative medium that offers invaluable resources and tools
for learning so it becomes important for schools and parents to enable
Internet access for Children. Time spent by children online can be very
productive and Children can learn in easy and innovative ways, for example,
by using tools available for collaborative learning. But this requires an
essential orientation for Children for guided exposure to the valuable
resources available so as to get them to to focus on the productive
resources.

As Internet is becoming a part of every day life, especially for our
Children, it becomes important for Children to be aware that there are good
and bad 'places' and good and bad people just as there are good and bad
locations in our physical neighborhood and good and bad people in real life.


Most children, in their first phase of Internet exposure tend to become
curious and exploratory on undesirable content and get drawn to Adult
content and unsafe places such as chat rooms online. In the absence of a
proper orientation and guidance there is also a danger of children coming
into contact with the wrong kind of people.

Children seem to be active participants in popular Social Networking sites,
chat-rooms, virtual places, online games etc. Children tend to be
exploratory and adventurous and need a orientation on how to safeguard
themselves and on aspects such as what information can be shared at such
sites with co-participants who are often unidentifiable strangers with
misleading identities.

While such wrong corers are a part of the Internet, there is ample goodness
in the Internet for Children to learn from. With the idea of orienting
children towards productive use of the Internet and guide them on Online
Safety aspects, ISOC India Chennai proposes to organize this workshop.

**Participants with expertise in Online Safety aspects, parents, teachers.
We will approach Parry Aftab, leading advocate of child safety aspects to be
a co-participant.

*The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:*ISOC India Chennai


http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=198

 *Title: * Internet in Education and Curriculum Development and Sharing:
Alexandria Everywhere

 *Concise Description:*
Even with an estimated 1.4 billion users connected, Internet is still a
phenomenon in its nascent phase of evolution. Internet has fostered
innovation and has caused all round progress to happen in an accelerated
pace, but the thinking that Internet makes it possible to globally
coordinate concrete developmental programs for an enhanced level of economic
progress is yet to set in.

Education is one of the areas where Internet can cause tremendous change.
Collaborative, participatory learning Models are evolving and classrooms
around the world are experimentally connected.

A concrete, globally adaptable, CO-ORDINATED program could bridge the gap
between quality of education between a classroom in a well funded school in
a developed country and one in an inadequately funded school in a developing
or under-developed country. This workshop (panel and public participation)
would examine models by which resources could be shared across Internet and
create a rough, actionable framework for educational institutions to connect
by commercial and non-commercial models and examine ways of making it
possible to expand the reach of well developed curriculum (in terms of
content, teaching methods and technology) reach remote corners on a
co-ordinated, global scale.

**How this workshop will be organized: We would approach an eminent
educational institution / academic center to be the co-organizers. The lead
participants of this workshop are to have the diversity of academia from
developed and developing countries, policy planners, e-curriculum experts,
students from developed and developing countries and futuristic thinkers.
The choosen topic would also further IGF's efforts to improve the diversity
of participation by attracting participation / involving the student
community from around the world, in the preparatory phase, during IGF and in
follow up collaboration.

*The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:*ISOC India Chennai

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=136

 *Title: *Workshop on Fundamentals: Internet's Core Values.

 *Concise Description:*
What is Internet? What makes it what it is? What are Internet's
Characteristics? What are the core values? Open architecture? Free medium? a
medium that fosters Innovation free of intermediaries and controls? a single
unified Network of Networks? a non-discriminatory medium? a medium open for
access by anyone from anywhere? a neutral medium? What are the core values?
And what is happening to the core values in the process of its evolution?
What needs to be preserved and what changes are inevitable? How could
changes and improvements be brought about without compromising on the core
values? How would the different positions between stakeholders be reconciled
to commit to the Internet's core values?

**We propose to invite one or two organizations / academic institutions
committed to Internet's core values to co-organize this workshop. Some of
the early pioneers of Internet who have contributed to the Internet's
architectural principles are to be invited to define Internet's core values,
followed by a participative discussion on current positive and adverse
trends and how to ensure further progress without compromising on Internet's
core values.

*The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:*ISOC India Chennai

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=156











On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>  The clear merge here is with workshop proposal 184 on the same subject
> (net neutrality) from Diplo Foundation (Vladimir Radunovic).
> Ginger, given your associations there, can you approach them and see if
> they are willing to merge? WE need to submit by June 15 so I guess this is
> fairly urgent.
>
>
>
> On 7/06/09 7:22 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I see that 15th is the last date for final workshop proposals and 30th for
> speakers. IGC has two workshop proposals and we will need to work on this.
> Best to get working groups made for each. This is how it worked the last
> time.
>
> Meanwhile there is a proposal in the program paper that some workshops that
> are sufficiently representative will be given longer time period - 3 hours,
> with a view of possibly seeking some useful convergences of views. The
> precise language of the program paper is
>
> "Merged workshops will be given the opportunity to bring their findings to
> the attention of the related main session. If sufficiently representative,
> merged workshops will be given three hour slots with the aim of providing an
> opportunity to identify a range of best practices."
>
> I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality
> workshop with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3 hour slot.
> We can point to the fact that in at least one country (Norway) all
> stakeholders have been able to agree to set of NN principles, and it is
> worth making such efforts at the global level. At the least we can try to
> agree to some  basic set of principles that flow flow from the defining
> characteristics of 'openness' and 'neutrality' of the Internet.
>
> In order to give our best to leverage the new format opened up, perhaps as
> a back up (since we have no proposed workshop on this subject) we can seek a
> 3 hour workshop on developing principles and best practices in IG in the
> area of disability rights - this would perhaps also complement the current
> work in WIPO on copyright exception for the disabled.
>
> On  a different note, we should also put in a request for a booth in the
> IGF village for the IGC, last date fro which is 30th June. We took one in
> Hyderabad, but it was not advertised among members and did not get used.
> Such a booth is  a good meeting point for the caucus
>
> parminder
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/0468e7c2/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Mon Jun  8 04:16:37 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:16:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>

Hi Ian,

the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates Party
is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one of
us has made it.

The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
them.

In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
number are growing very fast.

In copyright we think very much like the french inventor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard

who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
That machine was almost a computer.

Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.

Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
have happend today.

In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
Law.

Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
is why we don't want censoring in the first place.

If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
censoring is about.

Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
right of copy :)

Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry already
but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
side of the coin.

The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
copyrighted.

By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
copyright industry and not to the artists.

Kind regards
Peter

Ian Peter wrote:
> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?
> 
> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
> -090607/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
> of state administration.
> 
> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
> 
> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
> Interested in reports from those who know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>
>> piratenpartei.net
>>
>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>
>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>
>> Have a nice weekend
>> Peter
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Jun  8 04:36:06 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:36:06 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719121@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

okay und danke
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: Peter Dambier [mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de]
Gesendet: Mo 08.06.2009 10:16
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored



Hi Ian,

the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates Party
is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one of
us has made it.

The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
them.

In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
number are growing very fast.

In copyright we think very much like the french inventor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard

who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
That machine was almost a computer.

Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.

Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
have happend today.

In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
Law.

Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
is why we don't want censoring in the first place.

If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
censoring is about.

Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
right of copy :)

Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry already
but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
side of the coin.

The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
copyrighted.

By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
copyright industry and not to the artists.

Kind regards
Peter

Ian Peter wrote:
> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?
>
> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
> -090607/
>
>
>
>
> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
> of state administration.
>
> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
>
> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
> Interested in reports from those who know more.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>
>> piratenpartei.net
>>
>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>
>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>
>> Have a nice weekend
>> Peter
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  8 04:50:24 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:20:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A2CD0D0.6080502@itforchange.net>

NGN of course is an NN issue. And I agree that we should look at NN in 
the broader sense as Bill suggests, which to me is the original sense 
itself.  Parminder

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Milton,
>
> Not sure what the disconnect is here.  NGN is a term used in industry 
> and policy circles world wide to characterize the shift underway from 
> PSTNs to IP-based convergent nets with new architectures and service 
> provisioning models.  An important part of those new models, if the 
> carriers get their way, is to abandon NN, ergo my characterization of 
> the issues as part and parcel of the NGN shift.  Some observers say 
> that NGNs could provide the technical means to monitor and manage 
> traffic in such a manner that all applications are treated on a 
> nondiscriminatory basis, but that doesn't appear the to be preference 
> of the carriers making the investments.  And they're getting their way 
> in various places; governments like the UK's have specifically 
> rejected NN as a barrier to NGN development.  So I was simply 
> suggesting we might want to consider NN in the context of the larger 
> transformation underway.
>
> I've moaned here on and off for years about the apparent aversion to 
> assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom industry, 
> including its global governance, on the Internet and IG.  It really 
> puzzles me that we would treat a katrillion dollar industry that 
> controls much of the underlying infrastructure as somehow irrelevant, 
> particularly after all the (semi-coherent) discussions of 
> international interconnection charging and such in WSIS and beyond. 
>  The singular obsession with ICANN---not so much what ICANN actually 
> does, the issues it addresses, but rather what it is or represents 
> institutionally---seems to blot out interest in other issues and 
> leaves the ministries and industry to merrily go there way without any 
> public interest advocacy as a countervailing force beyond purely 
> national discussions.  Since we can't or don't participate in most of 
> the international spaces where this stuff goes on, why would we not 
> want to use the opportunities provided by the IGF to explore these 
> dynamics, especially when they're directly relevant to the focus of 
> the workshop?
>
> Whatever...dead horse duly beaten, back to our regular programming...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is "part 
>> and parcel" of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean is that 
>> phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being neutral, which may 
>> be true, and is certainly important if it is. I still don't know what 
>> you meant by "...of which it is part and parcel."
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
>> *To:* Milton L Mueller
>> *Cc:* Governance List
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>>  
>> Hi Milton,
>>  
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>> I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and 
>> placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is 
>> part and parcel.
>>  
>> It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>>  
>>  
>> Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making 
>> the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they 
>> are---replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to 
>> QOS and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the 
>> standards and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter 
>> that they are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use 
>> terminology they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter 
>> that they are doing these things? Or that taking note of the global 
>> trends is suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a 
>> peculiarly US-centric view of NN at work here...:-)
>>  
>> But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF 
>> context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a 
>> stand-alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a 
>> larger set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the 
>> net going forward?
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> 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>
> ***********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/763c6a80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  8 06:48:42 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:48:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
References: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com> <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200906080748.AA48420672@rits.org.br>

Yes, curious reaction, I do not understand as well what really motivated
McTim to do it. I think this is an open space and we can of course post
anything anyone of us feel relevant to the others as piece of
information, news etc.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "'McTim'" <dogwallah at gmail.com>,
"'Pranesh Prakash'" <pranesh at cis-india.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:47:35 -0700
Subject: RE: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit

> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional
> interest
> in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the
> occasional
> background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be
> extremely
> valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my
> mind, fit
> within that category. 
> 
> Especially in light of current/recent discussons.
> 
> MBG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
> Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust
> Suit 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
> 
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
> 
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> 
> On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> > From:  
> >
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_c
> f
> > it_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
> >
> >  Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign 
> Jun 
> > 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
> >
> >  By John Levine
> >
> >  Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet  
> > Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN 
> > meeting,  and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their 
> > monopoly control  of the .COM registry and of the market in
> expiring 
> > .COM domains. They  didn't do very well in the trial court, which 
> > granted Verisign's motion  to dismiss the case. But yesterday the 
> > Ninth Circuit reversed the trial  court and put the suit back on 
> > track.
> >
> >  In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court
> > that  the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that
> VeriSign 
> > engaged  in a variety of predatory conduct including financial 
> > pressure,  astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN
> to 
> > renew  the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what
> is 
> > in  practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price 
> > increases. As  part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit,
> paid 
> > ICANN several  million dollars, and promised never to lobby against
> > ICANN again.
> >
> >  In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that
> CFIT's  
> > claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring 
> > domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet  
> > Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to 
> > them.  They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a 
> > separate  market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant,
> since 
> > the domain  market has evolved a lot since then.
> >
> >  CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals 
> > court  found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to
> > look at  them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or 
> > continue. But  the case with respect to .COM definitely is going 
> > ahead.
> >
> >  This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since
> there  
> > were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for
> $3  
> > per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge  
> > embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt,
> or  
> > both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is
> the  
> > most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit 
> > ICANN  was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so
> now 
> > they're  just an uncomfortable observer.
> >
> >  Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They
> > get a  fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that
> VeriSign  
> > currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would
> still  
> > get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,  
> > there'd be a lot more registrations.
> >
> >  CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN
> observer  
> > just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this  
> > surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about
> as  
> > opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
>  
> > other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
>  
> > Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded
> by  
> > Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that 
> > does  a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a
> popular 
> > domain  sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not
> a 
> > great fan  of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I
> > look forward to  the progress of this suit, not the least for the 
> > interesting documents  that are likely to appear in the discovery 
> > stage.
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Pranesh Prakash
> >  Programme Manager
> >  Centre for Internet and Society
> >  W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  8 07:49:38 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:49:38 -0700
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning the
 TLDA
Message-ID: <20090608044938.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.bec506ade4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/3e55908d/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  Mon Jun  8 09:58:10 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <54054.33424.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Sorry, I can't support a political party such as The Pirate Party that has its origins in "extreme rightwing politics" through the money man, Carl Lundström. Then there's "Gottfrid Svartholm Varg and Frederik Neij, the nerds who run The Pirate
Bay itself, have also been accused by the prosecutor of tax evasion."

See the rest of this unsavoury tale at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay.

So are all these people involved in The Pirate Party?

By the way, this so-called "censoring" of "piratenpartei.net" - is the same sort of or similar censoring as was alleged against Wikileaks in Germany, when it turned out the problem lay with the holder of the domain name?

David





----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 6:16:37 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored

Hi Ian,

the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates Party
is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one of
us has made it.

The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
them.

In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
number are growing very fast.

In copyright we think very much like the french inventor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard

who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
That machine was almost a computer.

Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.

Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
have happend today.

In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
Law.

Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
is why we don't want censoring in the first place.

If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
censoring is about.

Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
right of copy :)

Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry already
but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
side of the coin.

The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
copyrighted.

By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
copyright industry and not to the artists.

Kind regards
Peter

Ian Peter wrote:
> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?
> 
> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
> -090607/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
> of state administration.
> 
> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
> 
> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
> Interested in reports from those who know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>
>> piratenpartei.net
>>
>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>
>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>
>> Have a nice weekend
>> Peter
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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



      Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  8 10:23:45 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:53:45 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com>

Ian said:

---Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
Secretariat for its work to date".

"(simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)" (end Ian)---

I (Ginger) have added the requested sentence below (also changing the 
previous "congratulates" to "commends" to avoid repetition).  I ask that 
anyone with text for inclusion, please post it. I personally prefer a 
short, to-the-point statement, and am not clear on what others are 
asking to be added, so please post your views for discussion.

Current version:

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 commends the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC is firmly of the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates the Secretariat for its work to date.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the GF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.
 
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.



Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Ginger, 
>
> Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
> is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
> Secretariat for its work to date".
>
> (simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
> argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)
>
>
>
> On 8/06/09 2:09 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Milton said:
>>
>> "Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
>> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or
>> are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included
>> -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could
>> happen."
>>
>> Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice
>> to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF
>> should continue so that could happen".
>>
>> This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review
>> statements says:
>>
>> "In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in
>> mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at
>> present, including constituencies in developing counties including
>> those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG
>> issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also
>> be especially reached out to."
>>
>> However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from
>> basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also
>> think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and
>> intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity,
>> so I have also separated that point as well.
>>
>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for
>> discussion and inclusion.
>>
>> Re-organizeded version (previous version below):
>>
>> 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 its implementation of the principle of
>> multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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
>> multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of
>> civil society, this principle has not yet 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.
>> The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of
>> possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be
>> concerned to see addressed.
>>
>> We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an
>> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion,
>> particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Previous statement:
>>
>> 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. We feel however, that
>> 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.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the 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. However, the IGC is concerned about the
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the
>> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed,
>> and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental
>> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>>>
>>>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>>>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>>>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>>>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>>>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>>>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>>>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>>>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>>>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>>>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>>>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>>>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>>>> shot as a main thrust.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
>>> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal?
>>> Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people
>>> included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that
>>> could happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Jun  8 10:52:22 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:52:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
 proceeding
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>

I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the
stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA
or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?

As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.  So are Verizon,
VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark
Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for
concluding JPA.

Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
> ------
>
> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>
> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the
> JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's
> failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially
> assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the
> global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in
> one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy
> outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire,
> and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and
> completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder
> global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international
> instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that
> can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep
> ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal
> accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's
> Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to
> limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead,
> the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure
> that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But
> to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the
> acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and
> XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of
> Information Studies
> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and
> Public Affairs
> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University
> Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090608/a67ff229/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 11:19:02 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:19:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
 proceeding
In-Reply-To: <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906080819m694374c8ld833102ed5cd90b1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/8/09, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
> I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the
> stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA
> or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?

temporarily, I think is the flava.

>
> As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.

I don't think they have taken a position.  The paper called "Africa is
Not Ready Yet"
is by an AU staffer, but is not an official position.  Is that what
you are referring to?

 So are Verizon,
> VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark
> Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for
> concluding JPA.

As am I.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 13:03:49 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:03:49 +0500
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
 proceeding
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906081003p5170e8d5v9767f179d043c751@mail.gmail.com>

Why doesn't anyone recommend what the "international instrument"
should be. Should it be the three bodies that the WGIG recommended to
the WSIS in Tunis? Is this instrument:

- The World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(WICANN) to take over from ICANN

Just for your reference: From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance

Four options for the management of Internet-related public policy
issues were proposed in the Final Report of the WGIG, finalised during
their fourth meeting, and presented to stakeholders on 18 July 2005 in
preparation for the November 2005 meeting in Tunis, Tunisia. These
proposals all include the introduction of an open Multi-stakeholder
based Internet Governance forum to give greater voice to the
stakeholders around the world, including civil society, private sector
and governments. Each model also included different strategies for the
oversight role, currently held by the United States Department of
Commerce.
The proposed models were:
- Create the Global Internet Council (GIC) consisting of governments
and involved stakeholders to take over the U.S. oversight role of
ICANN.
- Ensure that ICANNs Governmental Advisory Committee is an official
forum for debate, strengthening its position by allowing for the
support of various governments.
- Remove the U.S. oversight of ICANN and restrict it to the narrow
technical role, forming the International Internet Council (IIC) to
manage most aspects of the Internet administration.

Create three new bodies:
- The Global Internet Policy Council (GIPC) to manage
"internet-related public policy issues"
- The World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(WICANN) to take over from ICANN
- The Global Internet Governance Forum (GIGF), a central debating
forum for governments.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
> ------
>
> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>
> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire, and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead, the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Mon Jun  8 14:56:34 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:56:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <54054.33424.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de> <54054.33424.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A2D5EE2.8020304@peter-dambier.de>

Hello David,

in germany we are accused of beeing leftist and I guess that
was the reason why our provider (alfahosting.info) shut our
webside down.

The holder of the domain is Andreas Popp and no, the problem
is not he but I can say alfahosting is. They complained about
free music and free movies produced by the pirates themselves.

Kind regards
Peter


David Goldstein wrote:
> Sorry, I can't support a political party such as The Pirate Party that has its origins in "extreme rightwing politics" through the money man, Carl Lundström. Then there's "Gottfrid Svartholm Varg and Frederik Neij, the nerds who run The Pirate
> Bay itself, have also been accused by the prosecutor of tax evasion."
> 
> See the rest of this unsavoury tale at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay.
> 
> So are all these people involved in The Pirate Party?
> 
> By the way, this so-called "censoring" of "piratenpartei.net" - is the same sort of or similar censoring as was alleged against Wikileaks in Germany, when it turned out the problem lay with the holder of the domain name?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 6:16:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates Party
> is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
> it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one of
> us has made it.
> 
> The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
> time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
> the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
> the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
> them.
> 
> In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
> number are growing very fast.
> 
> In copyright we think very much like the french inventor
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard
> 
> who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
> That machine was almost a computer.
> 
> Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
> first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
> gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.
> 
> Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
> have happend today.
> 
> In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
> windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
> Law.
> 
> Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
> is why we don't want censoring in the first place.
> 
> If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
> censoring is about.
> 
> Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
> die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
> right of copy :)
> 
> Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
> has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry already
> but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
> side of the coin.
> 
> The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
> copyrighted.
> 
> By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
> copyright industry and not to the artists.
> 
> Kind regards
> Peter
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
>> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?
>>
>> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
>> -090607/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
>> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
>> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
>> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
>> of state administration.
>>
>> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
>> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
>>
>> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
>> Interested in reports from those who know more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>>
>>> piratenpartei.net
>>>
>>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>>
>>> Have a nice weekend
>>> Peter
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 15:39:07 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 00:39:07 +0500
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2D5EE2.8020304@peter-dambier.de>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
	 <54054.33424.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4A2D5EE2.8020304@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906081239g8769f12r3cbf23824f08533e@mail.gmail.com>

Sounds like the supporter region of peer-2-peer production is now
banning p2p...........interesting concept.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Peter Dambier<peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> in germany we are accused of beeing leftist and I guess that
> was the reason why our provider (alfahosting.info) shut our
> webside down.
>
> The holder of the domain is Andreas Popp and no, the problem
> is not he but I can say alfahosting is. They complained about
> free music and free movies produced by the pirates themselves.
>
> Kind regards
> Peter
>
>
> David Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I can't support a political party such as The Pirate Party that has
>> its origins in "extreme rightwing politics" through the money man, Carl
>> Lundström. Then there's "Gottfrid Svartholm Varg and Frederik Neij, the
>> nerds who run The Pirate
>> Bay itself, have also been accused by the prosecutor of tax evasion."
>>
>> See the rest of this unsavoury tale at
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay.
>>
>> So are all these people involved in The Pirate Party?
>>
>> By the way, this so-called "censoring" of "piratenpartei.net" - is the
>> same sort of or similar censoring as was alleged against Wikileaks in
>> Germany, when it turned out the problem lay with the holder of the domain
>> name?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 6:16:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
>>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates
>> Party
>> is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have
>> made
>> it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one
>> of
>> us has made it.
>>
>> The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the
>> first
>> time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
>> the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
>> the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
>> them.
>>
>> In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
>> number are growing very fast.
>>
>> In copyright we think very much like the french inventor
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard
>>
>> who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
>> That machine was almost a computer.
>>
>> Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
>> first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
>> gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.
>>
>> Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
>> have happend today.
>>
>> In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
>> windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
>> Law.
>>
>> Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
>> is why we don't want censoring in the first place.
>>
>> If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
>> censoring is about.
>>
>> Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
>> die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
>> right of copy :)
>>
>> Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
>> has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry
>> already
>> but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
>> side of the coin.
>>
>> The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
>> copyrighted.
>>
>> By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
>> copyright industry and not to the artists.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Peter
>>
>> Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in
>>> EU?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
>>> -090607/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
>>> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright
>>> and
>>> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the
>>> right
>>> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the
>>> transparency
>>> of state administration.
>>>
>>> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
>>> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
>>>
>>> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
>>> Interested in reports from those who know more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>>>
>>>> piratenpartei.net
>>>>
>>>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>>>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>>>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Have a nice weekend
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 

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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  8 15:40:05 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:40:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
In-Reply-To: <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Carlton:
Statistics are meaningless here.

Large trademark owners and other major U.S.-based business interests (VeriSign, GoDaddy) want to continue the JPA because it allows them to lobby the U.S.G. to get what they want if they don't get it in ICANN. these people cultivate very strong relationships with U.S. Congress.

ISOC-related people and organizations support independents for ICANN because they are basically in control of it.

Independent analysts of the situation, such as IGP, APC, the Swiss ccTLD registry, want strong action to fix ICANN's problems, but see unilateral US control as part of those problems rather than as part of the solution.

I don't know what's up with the African Union guy, I found his comments to be incoherent, perhaps you know where he's coming from? anyway he makes the same mistake so many others make, which is "if there's anything wrong with ICANN, then continuing the JPA will somehow make it better." which is way, way non sequitur.

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



________________________________
From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN proceeding

I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?

As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.  So are Verizon, VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for concluding JPA.

Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
------

"The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
- President Barack Obama, 2008

ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire, and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead, the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.

Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

____________________________________________________________
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/20090608/c0fff442/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  8 15:45:48 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:45:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
 <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A48@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Bill,
the disconnect is that NN is not "part of" NGN; on the contrary NGN is a trend that runs counter to it. Your phrasing was confusing.
There's no resistance here to "assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom industry..." on the contrary, this is why we proposed and offered to organize an NN panel and why IGP introduced NN into the global IG debate two years ago. So please, climb down from that hobby horse.

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



________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:42 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Governance List
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops

Hi Milton,

Not sure what the disconnect is here.  NGN is a term used in industry and policy circles world wide to characterize the shift underway from PSTNs to IP-based convergent nets with new architectures and service provisioning models.  An important part of those new models, if the carriers get their way, is to abandon NN, ergo my characterization of the issues as part and parcel of the NGN shift.  Some observers say that NGNs could provide the technical means to monitor and manage traffic in such a manner that all applications are treated on a nondiscriminatory basis, but that doesn't appear the to be preference of the carriers making the investments.  And they're getting their way in various places; governments like the UK's have specifically rejected NN as a barrier to NGN development.  So I was simply suggesting we might want to consider NN in the context of the larger transformation underway.

I've moaned here on and off for years about the apparent aversion to assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom industry, including its global governance, on the Internet and IG.  It really puzzles me that we would treat a katrillion dollar industry that controls much of the underlying infrastructure as somehow irrelevant, particularly after all the (semi-coherent) discussions of international interconnection charging and such in WSIS and beyond.  The singular obsession with ICANN---not so much what ICANN actually does, the issues it addresses, but rather what it is or represents institutionally---seems to blot out interest in other issues and leaves the ministries and industry to merrily go there way without any public interest advocacy as a countervailing force beyond purely national discussions.  Since we can't or don't participate in most of the international spaces where this stuff goes on, why would we not want to use the opportunities provided by the IGF to explore these dynamics, especially when they're directly relevant to the focus of the workshop?

Whatever...dead horse duly beaten, back to our regular programming...

Cheers,

Bill



On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is "part and parcel" of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean is that phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being neutral, which may be true, and is certainly important if it is. I still don't know what you meant by "...of which it is part and parcel."
________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Governance List
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops
Hi Milton,
On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:


I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is part and parcel.
It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they are---replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to QOS and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the standards and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter that they are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use terminology they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter that they are doing these things? Or that taking note of the global trends is suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a peculiarly US-centric view of NN at work here...:-)
But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a stand-alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a larger set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the net going forward?
Cheers,
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>
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/fb455020/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 christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be  Mon Jun  8 15:56:28 2009
From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:56:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A48@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A48@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A2D6CEC.4030806@skynet.be>

Good evening:

This time, I agree with Milton.

Regards, CW

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

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Bill,
> the disconnect is that NN is not "part of" NGN; on the contrary NGN is 
> a trend that runs counter to it. Your phrasing was confusing.
> There's no resistance here to "assessing the potential impacts of 
> trends in the telecom industry..." on the contrary, this is why we 
> proposed and offered to organize an NN panel and why IGP introduced NN 
> into the global IG debate two years ago. So please, climb down from 
> that hobby horse.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>     *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 3:42 AM
>     *To:* Milton L Mueller
>     *Cc:* Governance List
>     *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>
>     Hi Milton,
>
>     Not sure what the disconnect is here. NGN is a term used in
>     industry and policy circles world wide to characterize the shift
>     underway from PSTNs to IP-based convergent nets with new
>     architectures and service provisioning models. An important part
>     of those new models, if the carriers get their way, is to abandon
>     NN, ergo mycharacterization of the issues aspart and parcel of the
>     NGN shift. Some observers say that NGNs could provide the
>     technical means tomonitor and manage traffic in such a manner that
>     all applications are treated on a nondiscriminatory basis, but
>     that doesn't appear the to be preference of the carriers making
>     the investments. And they're getting their way in various places;
>     governments like the UK's have specifically rejected NN as a
>     barrier to NGN development. So I was simply suggesting we might
>     want to consider NN in the context of the larger transformation
>     underway.
>
>     I've moaned here on and off for years about the apparent aversion
>     to assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom
>     industry, including its global governance, on the Internet and IG.
>     It really puzzles me that we would treat akatrillion dollar
>     industry that controls much of the underlying infrastructure as
>     somehow irrelevant, particularly after all the (semi-coherent)
>     discussions of international interconnection charging and such in
>     WSIS and beyond. The singular obsession with ICANN---not so much
>     what ICANN actually does, the issues it addresses, but rather what
>     it is or represents institutionally---seems to blot out interest
>     in other issues and leaves the ministries and industry to merrily
>     go there way without any public interest advocacy as a
>     countervailing force beyond purely national discussions. Since we
>     can't or don't participate in most of the international spaces
>     where this stuff goes on, why would we not want to use the
>     opportunities provided by the IGF to explore these dynamics,
>     especially when they're directly relevant to the focus of the
>     workshop?
>
>     Whatever...dead horse duly beaten, back to our regular programming...
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Bill
>
>
>
>     On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>     No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is
>>     "part and parcel" of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean
>>     is that phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being
>>     neutral, which may be true, and is certainly important if it is.
>>     I still don't know what you meant by "...of which it is part and
>>     parcel."
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:*William Drake[mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>     *Sent:*Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
>>     *To:*Milton L Mueller
>>     *Cc:*Governance List
>>     *Subject:*Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>>     Hi Milton,
>>     On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM,Milton L Muellerwrote:
>>
>>
>>     I agree. We might want to consider widening the lens an little
>>     and placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of
>>     which it is part and parcel.
>>     It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>>     Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact
>>     making the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they
>>     are---replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to
>>     move to QOS and differentiation, etc? Or that because they adopt
>>     the standards and coordinate on the policies inGeneva, it doesn't
>>     matter that they are doing these things? Or that
>>     becauseinGenevathey use terminology they may not use as much in
>>     theUS,it doesn't matter that they are doing these things? Or that
>>     taking note of the global trends is suspect if one is based
>>     inGeneva? Or...? Perhaps a peculiarly US-centric view of NN at
>>     work here...:-)
>>     But forget the term, forget the ITU. The question is, in the IGF
>>     context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a
>>     stand-alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a
>>     larger set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect
>>     the net going forward?
>>     Cheers,
>>     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>
>     ***********************************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/7ed5a0ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jun  8 16:34:23 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 01:34:23 +0500
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906081334l44db394dof8ff67c1fd708aa4@mail.gmail.com>

I don't know how far it would take the Africans to follow suite of the
mentioned corporations....somehow, there is a growing need to help the
developing world why and what they might want to achieve from Internet
Governance. The JPA issue might be a starting point for everyone from
the developing world but again, they have to be sensible to do a
self-assessment instead of following the developed blindly. They might
then be in a better standing to position themselves in the right of
their issues.


On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Carlton:
> Statistics are meaningless here.
>
> Large trademark owners and other major U.S.-based business interests
> (VeriSign, GoDaddy) want to continue the JPA because it allows them to lobby
> the U.S.G. to get what they want if they don't get it in ICANN. these
> people cultivate very strong relationships with U.S. Congress.
>
> ISOC-related people and organizations support independents for ICANN because
> they are basically in control of it.
>
> Independent analysts of the situation, such as IGP, APC, the Swiss ccTLD
> registry, want strong action to fix ICANN's problems, but see unilateral US
> control as part of those problems rather than as part of the solution.
>
> I don't know what's up with the African Union guy, I found his comments to
> be incoherent, perhaps you know where he's coming from? anyway he makes the
> same mistake so many others make, which is "if there's anything wrong with
> ICANN, then continuing the JPA will somehow make it better." which is way,
> way non sequitur.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Carlton Samuels
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
> proceeding
>
> I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the
> stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA
> or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?
>
> As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.  So are Verizon,
> VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark
> Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for
> concluding JPA.
>
> Carlton Samuels
> The University of the West Indies
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
>> ------
>>
>> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
>> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>>
>> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the
>> JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's
>> failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially
>> assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the
>> global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in
>> one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy
>> outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire,
>> and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and
>> completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder
>> global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international
>> instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that
>> can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep
>> ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal
>> accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's
>> Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to
>> limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead,
>> the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure
>> that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But
>> to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the
>> acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>>
>> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and
>> XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of
>> Information Studies
>> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and
>> Public Affairs
>> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University
>> Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Mon Jun  8 17:10:28 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (ken lohento)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:10:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906081334l44db394dof8ff67c1fd708aa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <701af9f70906081334l44db394dof8ff67c1fd708aa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2D7E44.8080602@panos-ao.org>

Hi Fouad

> I don't know how far it would take the Africans to follow suite of the
> mentioned corporations....

As McTim indicated, the person from the African Union who sent the 
comment to NTIA said on a list that it is his personal opinion and not 
that of the African Union. It's a pity this was not really made clear on 
the website (I don't know whose responsibility it is).


> somehow, there is a growing need to help the
> developing world why and what they might want to achieve from Internet
> Governance. 

I'm trying to understand what you mean but we should not generalize 
here...People in charge of internet governance that I know in Africa for 
example know very well why and want they want from internet governance. 
But it's true most stakeholders, notably people from CS and but also 
sometimes from governments in least developed countries need capacity 
building in internet governance notably.

Best regards

KL

> The JPA issue might be a starting point for everyone from
> the developing world but again, they have to be sensible to do a
> self-assessment instead of following the developed blindly. They might
> then be in a better standing to position themselves in the right of
> their issues.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Carlton:
>> Statistics are meaningless here.
>>
>> Large trademark owners and other major U.S.-based business interests
>> (VeriSign, GoDaddy) want to continue the JPA because it allows them to lobby
>> the U.S.G. to get what they want if they don't get it in ICANN. these
>> people cultivate very strong relationships with U.S. Congress.
>>
>> ISOC-related people and organizations support independents for ICANN because
>> they are basically in control of it.
>>
>> Independent analysts of the situation, such as IGP, APC, the Swiss ccTLD
>> registry, want strong action to fix ICANN's problems, but see unilateral US
>> control as part of those problems rather than as part of the solution.
>>
>> I don't know what's up with the African Union guy, I found his comments to
>> be incoherent, perhaps you know where he's coming from? anyway he makes the
>> same mistake so many others make, which is "if there's anything wrong with
>> ICANN, then continuing the JPA will somehow make it better." which is way,
>> way non sequitur.
>>
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>> ------------------------------
>> Internet Governance Project:
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf
>> Of Carlton Samuels
>> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
>> proceeding
>>
>> I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the
>> stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA
>> or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?
>>
>> As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.  So are Verizon,
>> VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark
>> Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for
>> concluding JPA.
>>
>> Carlton Samuels
>> The University of the West Indies
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>     
>>> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
>>> ------
>>>
>>> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
>>> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>>>
>>> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the
>>> JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's
>>> failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially
>>> assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the
>>> global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in
>>> one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy
>>> outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire,
>>> and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and
>>> completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder
>>> global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international
>>> instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that
>>> can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep
>>> ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal
>>> accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's
>>> Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to
>>> limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead,
>>> the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure
>>> that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But
>>> to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the
>>> acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and
>>> XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>>> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of
>>> Information Studies
>>> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>>> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and
>>> Public Affairs
>>> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University
>>> Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  8 17:42:33 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 23:42:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A48@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E55@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2D089613-F99C-4894-9EEA-A10D117764C5@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A48@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <DDEA0B81-F2B6-40E2-8CE3-DD3747D53D47@graduateinstitute.ch>

MM,

On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Bill,
> the disconnect is that NN is not "part of" NGN; on the contrary NGN  
> is a trend that runs counter to it. Your phrasing was confusing.

Sorry, I meant the issue of NN (preserving it) arises in the context  
of the NGN transition, not that NN is a favored approach of carriers  
pushing the transition, which is obviously not the case.

> There's no resistance here to "assessing the potential impacts of  
> trends in the telecom industry..." on the contrary, this is why we  
> proposed and offered to organize an NN panel and why IGP introduced  
> NN into the global IG debate two years ago. So please, climb down  
> from that hobby horse.

Uh, you kinda urged me to climb aboard with the 'Geneva-centric' bit,  
shades of debates past.  So ok, now that we're done talking past each  
other, do we agree it'd be useful to contextualize NN a bit more?

Cheers,

Bill


> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:42 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> Not sure what the disconnect is here.  NGN is a term used in  
> industry and policy circles world wide to characterize the shift  
> underway from PSTNs to IP-based convergent nets with new  
> architectures and service provisioning models.  An important part of  
> those new models, if the carriers get their way, is to abandon NN,  
> ergo my characterization of the issues as part and parcel of the NGN  
> shift.  Some observers say that NGNs could provide the technical  
> means to monitor and manage traffic in such a manner that all  
> applications are treated on a nondiscriminatory basis, but that  
> doesn't appear the to be preference of the carriers making the  
> investments.  And they're getting their way in various places;  
> governments like the UK's have specifically rejected NN as a barrier  
> to NGN development.  So I was simply suggesting we might want to  
> consider NN in the context of the larger transformation underway.
>
> I've moaned here on and off for years about the apparent aversion to  
> assessing the potential impacts of trends in the telecom industry,  
> including its global governance, on the Internet and IG.  It really  
> puzzles me that we would treat a katrillion dollar industry that  
> controls much of the underlying infrastructure as somehow  
> irrelevant, particularly after all the (semi-coherent) discussions  
> of international interconnection charging and such in WSIS and  
> beyond.  The singular obsession with ICANN---not so much what ICANN  
> actually does, the issues it addresses, but rather what it is or  
> represents institutionally---seems to blot out interest in other  
> issues and leaves the ministries and industry to merrily go there  
> way without any public interest advocacy as a countervailing force  
> beyond purely national discussions.  Since we can't or don't  
> participate in most of the international spaces where this stuff  
> goes on, why would we not want to use the opportunities provided by  
> the IGF to explore these dynamics, especially when they're directly  
> relevant to the focus of the workshop?
>
> Whatever...dead horse duly beaten, back to our regular programming...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> No, I just misunderstood your statement that Net Neutrality is  
>> “part and parcel” of the NGN trajectory. What you apparently mean  
>> is that phone companies may be using NGN to _avoid_ being neutral,  
>> which may be true, and is certainly important if it is. I still  
>> don’t know what you meant by “…of which it is part and parcel.”
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:38 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: Governance List
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>> Hi Milton,
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
>> placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it  
>> is part and parcel.
>> It is???? I hope not. That’s a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>> Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact  
>> making the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they  
>> are---replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move  
>> to QOS and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the  
>> standards and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't  
>> matter that they are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva  
>> they use terminology they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't  
>> matter that they are doing these things? Or that taking note of the  
>> global trends is suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?   
>> Perhaps a peculiarly US-centric view of NN at work here...:-)
>> But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF  
>> context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a  
>> stand-alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a  
>> larger set of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect  
>> the net going forward?
>> Cheers,
>> 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/20090608/e66fc39f/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  Mon Jun  8 19:02:23 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:02:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net>

On 8-Jun-09, at 7:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please  
>>> post text for discussion and inclusion.

I'm repeating myself, (and I do know I should let the silence of  
response on this list speak for itself), but I had already  
contributed another point about the essential content of dialogue on  
June 5th as follows:

> 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."

That's my way of flagging 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.  Else what's a civil society for?  We must not let others  
define our role.  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 by  
governments.  Capacity of governments to use the Internet for  
development will be improved by a deeper understanding of what the  
Internet's existence signifies. And, if some governments serve notice  
of their intention to draw a hard line in attempting to contain those  
implications, then responsible global citizenship requires a clear  
statement of intentions to speak to what will be lost.

GG____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  8 21:15:29 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:45:29 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net>
Message-ID: <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com>

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. 
If there are thoughts, comments or opinions, I think we need to read them.

If I understand correctly, Garth proposes that we add text so that the 
current statement now reads as follows below. I think that this would 
need re-working to be more coherent as a whole, and tied to the IGF 
Review process, so please do post your suggestions.

Garth, do you think your point of "moving beyond" the definition of 
Internet Governance could fit into one of the panels or sessions? It 
seems to be a specific topic that could be addressed. Can we make a 
concrete request to the Secretariat on how to address this?  We need to 
hear other thoughts to clarify if this is a viewpoint that is held by 
most of those in the IGC.  Thanks. Ginger

The proposed draft:

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 commends the UN 
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle 
of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC is firmly of 
the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates the Secretariat 
for its work to date.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the GF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective 
of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of 
participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an 
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder 
organization thus far.

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.

[We would also like to emphasize] 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."




Garth Graham wrote:
> On 8-Jun-09, at 7:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post 
>>>> text for discussion and inclusion.
>
> I'm repeating myself, (and I do know I should let the silence of 
> response on this list speak for itself), but I had already contributed 
> another point about the essential content of dialogue on June 5th as 
> follows:
>
>> 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."
>
> That's my way of flagging 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.  Else what's a civil society for?  We must not let others 
> define our role.  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 by governments.  
> Capacity of governments to use the Internet for development will be 
> improved by a deeper understanding of what the Internet's existence 
> signifies. And, if some governments serve notice of their intention to 
> draw a hard line in attempting to contain those implications, then 
> responsible global citizenship requires a clear statement of 
> intentions to speak to what will be lost.
>
> GG
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun  9 02:45:23 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:45:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57501765-1F3C-4642-B73F-E174469984E8@graduateinstitute.ch>

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.

Best,

Bill



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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Jun  9 02:52:25 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:52:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <C65443C9.2E51%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Interestingly I spoke about this to my son who earns his living as a music
composer arranger - and a substantial part of that is performance royalties
on radio, tv etc -

His take on this is that people who make money from his music should pay
royalties. People who just listen to copies and enjoy, different story. They
should have access to all music, we all should, its a great thing if we can
all hear music without having to pay recording companies $$$. Just like we
access information, we should access music. He is happy to provide figures
if anyone wants them to show that very little if any of copy - right charges
ends up in the hands of the performers/composers.

Which backs up Peter's point below.

(ahoy me hearties  --)






On 8/06/09 6:16 PM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> 
> the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates Party
> is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
> it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one of
> us has made it.
> 
> The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
> time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
> the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
> the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
> them.
> 
> In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
> number are growing very fast.
> 
> In copyright we think very much like the french inventor
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard
> 
> who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
> That machine was almost a computer.
> 
> Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
> first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
> gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.
> 
> Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
> have happend today.
> 
> In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
> windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
> Law.
> 
> Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
> is why we don't want censoring in the first place.
> 
> If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
> censoring is about.
> 
> Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
> die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
> right of copy :)
> 
> Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
> has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry already
> but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
> side of the coin.
> 
> The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
> copyrighted.
> 
> By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
> copyright industry and not to the artists.
> 
> Kind regards
> Peter
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
>> According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?
>> 
>> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
>> -090607/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
>> political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
>> patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
>> to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
>> of state administration.
>> 
>> Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
>> sharing site, Pirate Bay?
>> 
>> This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
>> Interested in reports from those who know more.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> right during the eu-elections the website
>>> 
>>> piratenpartei.net
>>> 
>>> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>>> hoster alfahosting.info.
>>> 
>>> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>>> Afraid of emails I guess.
>>> 
>>> Have a nice weekend
>>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Jun  9 05:30:45 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:30:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2E2BC5.6030908@wzb.eu>

Hi Ginger, after reading the statement once again, I notice that that I 
still have issues with a central part of the statement:

We feel however, that from the perspective
of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of
participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

Who do we have in mind when we criticize that "many... have not been 
engaged in the process"? I assume it is not the secretariat we expect to 
engage more groups in the process? If not the secretariat, who else? In 
my view, it is also our own responsibility to integrate affected groups 
and unless we become more specific in terms of faults, groups and the 
issues we have in mind, I don't see the point of this statement.

jeanette

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. 
> If there are thoughts, comments or opinions, I think we need to read them.
> 
> If I understand correctly, Garth proposes that we add text so that the 
> current statement now reads as follows below. I think that this would 
> need re-working to be more coherent as a whole, and tied to the IGF 
> Review process, so please do post your suggestions.
> 
> Garth, do you think your point of "moving beyond" the definition of 
> Internet Governance could fit into one of the panels or sessions? It 
> seems to be a specific topic that could be addressed. Can we make a 
> concrete request to the Secretariat on how to address this?  We need to 
> hear other thoughts to clarify if this is a viewpoint that is held by 
> most of those in the IGC.  Thanks. Ginger
> 
> The proposed draft:
> 
> 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 commends the UN 
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle 
> of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC is firmly of 
> the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates the Secretariat 
> for its work to date.
> 
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
> in the GF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective 
> of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of 
> participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the 
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.
> 
> We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an 
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
> discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder 
> organization thus far.
> 
> 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.
> 
> [We would also like to emphasize] 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garth Graham wrote:
>> On 8-Jun-09, at 7:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>>>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post 
>>>>> text for discussion and inclusion.
>>
>> I'm repeating myself, (and I do know I should let the silence of 
>> response on this list speak for itself), but I had already contributed 
>> another point about the essential content of dialogue on June 5th as 
>> follows:
>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> That's my way of flagging 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.  Else what's a civil society for?  We must not let others 
>> define our role.  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 by governments.  
>> Capacity of governments to use the Internet for development will be 
>> improved by a deeper understanding of what the Internet's existence 
>> signifies. And, if some governments serve notice of their intention to 
>> draw a hard line in attempting to contain those implications, then 
>> responsible global citizenship requires a clear statement of 
>> intentions to speak to what will be lost.
>>
>> GG
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  9 05:57:04 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:27:04 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2E2BC5.6030908@wzb.eu>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com> <4A2E2BC5.6030908@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A2E31F0.2040308@gmail.com>

Hi all--Bill and Jeanette (and Garth)...

Thank you very much for your messages. I suggest that we drop this 
statement (current IGF Review thread) entirely (collective sigh of 
relief). If someone wants to propose an IGF Review statement, it might 
be better to start over completely. Later I will look for the proper 
venue to address the issue of inclusion of lesser heard voices--maybe a 
workshop? If anyone has any suggestions, please email me off-list. 
Thanks for your patience.

Best, Ginger

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Ginger, after reading the statement once again, I notice that that 
> I still have issues with a central part of the statement:
>
> We feel however, that from the perspective
> of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is concerned about the lack of
> participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.
>
> Who do we have in mind when we criticize that "many... have not been 
> engaged in the process"? I assume it is not the secretariat we expect 
> to engage more groups in the process? If not the secretariat, who 
> else? In my view, it is also our own responsibility to integrate 
> affected groups and unless we become more specific in terms of faults, 
> groups and the issues we have in mind, I don't see the point of this 
> statement.
>
> jeanette
>
> 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. If there are thoughts, comments or opinions, I think we need 
>> to read them.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, Garth proposes that we add text so that 
>> the current statement now reads as follows below. I think that this 
>> would need re-working to be more coherent as a whole, and tied to the 
>> IGF Review process, so please do post your suggestions.
>>
>> Garth, do you think your point of "moving beyond" the definition of 
>> Internet Governance could fit into one of the panels or sessions? It 
>> seems to be a specific topic that could be addressed. Can we make a 
>> concrete request to the Secretariat on how to address this?  We need 
>> to hear other thoughts to clarify if this is a viewpoint that is held 
>> by most of those in the IGC.  Thanks. Ginger
>>
>> The proposed draft:
>>
>> 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 commends 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the 
>> principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC 
>> is firmly of the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates 
>> the Secretariat for its work to date.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>> involved in the GF process, by providing workshops and dialogues 
>> based on the multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from 
>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not yet 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. The IGC is 
>> concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of 
>> possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might 
>> be concerned to see addressed.
>>
>> We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an 
>> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
>> discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder 
>> organization thus far.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> [We would also like to emphasize] 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."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Garth Graham wrote:
>>> On 8-Jun-09, at 7:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please 
>>>>>> post text for discussion and inclusion.
>>>
>>> I'm repeating myself, (and I do know I should let the silence of 
>>> response on this list speak for itself), but I had already 
>>> contributed another point about the essential content of dialogue on 
>>> June 5th as follows:
>>>
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> That's my way of flagging 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.  Else what's a civil society for?  We must not let 
>>> others define our role.  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 by 
>>> governments.  Capacity of governments to use the Internet for 
>>> development will be improved by a deeper understanding of what the 
>>> Internet's existence signifies. And, if some governments serve 
>>> notice of their intention to draw a hard line in attempting to 
>>> contain those implications, then responsible global citizenship 
>>> requires a clear statement of intentions to speak to what will be lost.
>>>
>>> GG
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From avri at acm.org  Tue Jun  9 06:22:08 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:22:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <57501765-1F3C-4642-B73F-E174469984E8@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com> <57501765-1F3C-4642-B73F-E174469984E8@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <5DFCD220-AB4A-46EF-9127-B8F02D30180D@acm.org>


On 9 Jun 2009, at 08:45, William Drake wrote:

> Finally, as has been discussed here before, one should not get hung  
> up on the "respective roles" clause in the definition ...


As one of those who has been hung up on this ever since the words were  
first written down, i disagree.

i think this is a problematic phrase, especially when one looks at the  
list the roles and responsibilities lists that were created in WGIG.

It is a way for governments to try to keep civil society, the private  
sector and the internet technical community in their respective  
places, for they can always claim that we are moving beyond our roles  
and responsibilities.

true we can claim that governments have no real role and  
responsibility in the Internet, except the consumer protection of  
their citizens, but governments and IGOs will not readily accept that  
(and probably not most of ciil society either).

i believe it is a pernicious phrase and one i believe that civil  
society is better off not championing.

a.

ps. not currently under contract to any government or IGO
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun  9 07:22:18 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:22:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <5DFCD220-AB4A-46EF-9127-B8F02D30180D@acm.org>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com> <57501765-1F3C-4642-B73F-E174469984E8@graduateinstitute.ch> <5DFCD220-AB4A-46EF-9127-B8F02D30180D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0B2C388A-D324-4AB2-8083-00177527F605@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Avri

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> On 9 Jun 2009, at 08:45, William Drake wrote:
>
>> Finally, as has been discussed here before, one should not get hung  
>> up on the "respective roles" clause in the definition ...
>
>
> As one of those who has been hung up on this ever since the words  
> were first written down, i disagree.
>
> i think this is a problematic phrase, especially when one looks at  
> the list the roles and responsibilities lists that were created in  
> WGIG.

Of course it is, which is why we argued against it in WGIG, and why a  
couple months ago, when IGC was considering a related workshop  
proposal, I argued against using and legitimizing the term.  We can't  
post hoc delete it from the UN recognized def, and should be on guard  
for any efforts to invoke it as justification for a purely  
intergovernmental construction of enhanced cooperation etc.  But in  
our own understanding of what IG is, there's no need get hung up on an  
empirically false wart inserted for political rather than conceptually  
principled reasons.  So the point I was making was folks shouldn't  
interpret this clause as meaning that IG is necessarily a negotiation  
between the three stakeholder groups 'in their respective roles' and  
hence conclude that the definition is overly restrictive and should be  
abandoned.

I guess I need to start parsing more carefully in order to anticipate  
every possible interpretation.

Thanks,

Bill

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun  9 07:41:26 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:41:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net> <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop> <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch>



The ICC has come out against ending the JPA until ICANN addresses

1. Safeguard against capture, of all types
2. Accountability and transparency
3. Contract compliance
4. Streamlining priorities and processes to increase meaningful  
participation

http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/Statements/ICC%20response%20NOI%20ICANN%20FINAL%2008%2006%2009.pdf

One of the rather few occasions I can recall where ICC and ISOC had  
different positions on IG...


Meanwhile, CDT, which is probably the most influential NGO on Capitol  
Hill re: IG, says the JPA should be extended for one year to allow  
international dialogue and consensus building and so that ICANN can

1. Affirm, in a Binding Fashion, a Narrow Mandate
2. Recommit to the Consensus Principle and Articulate Precise and  
Exclusive
Criteria for Decision-Making
3. Develop an Accessible and Credible System of Quasi-Judicial Review
4. Establish a Suitable Relationship with Governments
5. Improve and Institutionalize the Transparency and Reliability of Its
Processes

http://www.cdt.org/international/20090608_icann.pdf

***********************************************************
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 baptista at publicroot.org  Tue Jun  9 08:45:46 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:45:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906090545h5b522203l9c525b0b9385b0e7@mail.gmail.com>

Peter - you forgot to mention that the Pirate Party is the first in history
to run and operate it's own TLD .PIRATE.

cheers
joe baptista

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German Pirates
> Party
> is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries have made
> it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are glad one
> of
> us has made it.
>
> The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was the first
> time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the party
> the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
> the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many visits to
> them.
>
> In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
> number are growing very fast.
>
> In copyright we think very much like the french inventor
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard
>
> who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
> That machine was almost a computer.
>
> Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
> first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
> gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.
>
> Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
> have happend today.
>
> In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
> windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
> Law.
>
> Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and that
> is why we don't want censoring in the first place.
>
> If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
> censoring is about.
>
> Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
> die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
> right of copy :)
>
> Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd that
> has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry
> already
> but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is only one
> side of the coin.
>
> The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
> copyrighted.
>
> By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
> copyright industry and not to the artists.
>
> Kind regards
> Peter
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
> > According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in
> EU?
> >
> >
> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
> > -090607/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
> > political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright
> and
> > patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the
> right
> > to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the
> transparency
> > of state administration.
> >
> > Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
> > sharing site, Pirate Bay?
> >
> > This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
> > Interested in reports from those who know more.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> right during the eu-elections the website
> >>
> >> piratenpartei.net
> >>
> >> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
> >> hoster alfahosting.info.
> >>
> >> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
> >> Afraid of emails I guess.
> >>
> >> Have a nice weekend
> >> Peter
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> --
> Peter and Karin Dambier
> Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> Rimbacher Strasse 16
> D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
> http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
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/20090609/1fdbefb1/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  Tue Jun  9 08:45:28 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:45:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
	 <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>
	 <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>
	 <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <1244551528.4121.409.camel@anriette-laptop>

Dear all

Attached is the APC submission to the NTIA. We ended up focusing
primarily on the accountability issue as our policy manager, Willie
Currie, has been exploring it in depth over the last few weeks. We do
believe it is a core issue.

Thanks to all who gave input.

Anriette


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APC_NTIA_JPA_Inquiry_080609_corrected.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 175126 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090609/84cf72a4/attachment.pdf>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Jun  9 08:56:10 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:56:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
 <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop> <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>
 <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <1244551528.4121.409.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719146@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Find attached my individual statement to the NOI/JPA.
 
Wolfgang

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Statement Kleinwaechter Rev..docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19744 bytes
Desc: Statement Kleinwaechter Rev..docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090609/4c7b7ea3/attachment.docx>

From peter at peter-dambier.de  Tue Jun  9 09:34:02 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:34:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906090545h5b522203l9c525b0b9385b0e7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A2CC8E5.1060502@peter-dambier.de> <874c02a20906090545h5b522203l9c525b0b9385b0e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2E64CA.10205@peter-dambier.de>

Thank you Joe,

yes we are running our own ".pirates" Top Level Domain, not to get censored :)

; <<>> DiG 9.4.2 <<>> -t any pirates
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7243
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;pirates.                       IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
pirates.                7200    IN      SOA     ns1.cesidio.net. peter.pccf.net. 2008092102 7200 7200 604800 7200
pirates.                300     IN      NS      ns1.pirates.
pirates.                300     IN      NS      ns7.cesidio.net.
pirates.                300     IN      NS      ns4.pirates.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.pirates.            300     IN      A       78.47.115.193
ns4.pirates.            300     IN      A       78.47.115.196

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: fd80:4ce1:c66a:0:221:97ff:fe76:305b#53(fd80:4ce1:c66a:0:221:97ff:fe76:305b)
;; WHEN: Tue Jun  9 15:19:57 2009
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 173


and the f-root.cesidio.net root-server for the Cesidian Root.

host_name("89.238.64.147","f-root.cesidio.net").


These did not get censored but it is mostly an experiment in privacy.

You have to look into your nameserver setup in windows and switch them
away from the DNS-servers offered by your isp. We are afraid the isp
might tell our government what sites we are looking at. It is the
most prominent place to do that and it is the most prominent place to
introduce censoring.

Switching to a Racine Libre or an alternative root might be bad for
the rfc's but it is good for your privacy.


Kind regards
Peter and Karin


Joe Baptista wrote:
> Peter - you forgot to mention that the Pirate Party is the first in
> history to run and operate it's own TLD .PIRATE.
> 
> cheers
> joe baptista
> 
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
> <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Ian,
> 
>     the Swedish Pirate Party has spread all over europe. The German
>     Pirates Party
>     is one of them. When enough pirates from other european countries
>     have made
>     it to Bruxelles we are allowed to form a block. Right now we are
>     glad one of
>     us has made it.
> 
>     The Pirate Bay was our first hoster and when they were banned was
>     the first
>     time the Pirates were banned too. Today, counting the members of the
>     party
>     the Pirates are number 3 in Sweden and the Pirates Youth Organisation is
>     the biggest Youth Organisation in Sweden and the Queen pays many
>     visits to
>     them.
> 
>     In Germany our youth have founded an organisation right now and their
>     number are growing very fast.
> 
>     In copyright we think very much like the french inventor
> 
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard
> 
>     who invented the loom mechanism controlled by punched card.
>     That machine was almost a computer.
> 
>     Jacquard gave his invention to the french people for free. That was the
>     first time of Public Domain I guess. In return the french government
>     gave him an old age pension so his invention was not in vain.
> 
>     Today Copyright Law is a mess. The French Revolution probably would not
>     have happend today.
> 
>     In the beginning computer programmes have been free too. Without that
>     windows would not even exist. That is why we need a reform of Copyright
>     Law.
> 
>     Censoring one of our sites was a misshap. But misshaps do happen and
>     that
>     is why we don't want censoring in the first place.
> 
>     If only people had been talking to each other but that is exactly what
>     censoring is about.
> 
>     Lives of people do depend on Open Access today. It is not ok to let them
>     die just for profit. That is why we need to reform the copyright into a
>     right of copy :)
> 
>     Copying music with a computer that has a copyright tax on it to a cd
>     that
>     has a copyright tax on it and the tax is payed to the music industry
>     already
>     but the music industry insists that copy is prohibited - that is
>     only one
>     side of the coin.
> 
>     The other side is people starving because the genes of the pig are
>     copyrighted.
> 
>     By the way I know of artists "starving" because the tax is payed to the
>     copyright industry and not to the artists.
> 
>     Kind regards
>     Peter
> 
>     Ian Peter wrote:
>     > According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two
>     seats in EU?
>     >
>     >
>     http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
>     > -090607/
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
>     > political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding
>     copyright and
>     > patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of
>     the right
>     > to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the
>     transparency
>     > of state administration.
>     >
>     > Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
>     > sharing site, Pirate Bay?
>     >
>     > This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
>     > Interested in reports from those who know more.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de
>     <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Hello,
>     >>
>     >> right during the eu-elections the website
>     >>
>     >> piratenpartei.net <http://piratenpartei.net>
>     >>
>     >> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
>     >> hoster alfahosting.info <http://alfahosting.info>.
>     >>
>     >> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
>     >> Afraid of emails I guess.
>     >>
>     >> Have a nice weekend
>     >> Peter
>     >
>     >
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > 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
> 
>     --
>     Peter and Karin Dambier
>     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>     Rimbacher Strasse 16
>     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
>     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
>     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joe Baptista
> 
> www.publicroot.org <http://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
> <http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com>

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Tue Jun  9 09:52:02 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:52:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906090652y712ee9cei28ed6e7c2620395b@mail.gmail.com>

Milton:
Depends on how you interpret the meaning of "statistics".  As an old
Washington hand, I happen to know that companies with paid lobbyists, PACs
and deep pockets tend to have multiplier effects in the Congress that pales
the single name identifier.

Carlton

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Carlton:
> Statistics are meaningless here.
>
> Large trademark owners and other major U.S.-based business interests
> (VeriSign, GoDaddy) want to continue the JPA because it allows them to lobby
> the U.S.G. to get what they want if they don't get it in ICANN. these
> people cultivate very strong relationships with U.S. Congress.
>
> ISOC-related people and organizations support independents for ICANN
> because they are basically in control of it.
>
> Independent analysts of the situation, such as IGP, APC, the Swiss ccTLD
> registry, want strong action to fix ICANN's problems, but see unilateral US
> control as part of those problems rather than as part of the solution.
>
> I don't know what's up with the African Union guy, I found his comments to
> be incoherent, perhaps you know where he's coming from? anyway he makes the
> same mistake so many others make, which is "if there's anything wrong with
> ICANN, then continuing the JPA will somehow make it better." which is way,
> way non sequitur.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels
> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
> proceeding
>
> I have been following the submissions and I would argue that purely on the
> stats, it appears the comments are decidedly in favour of continuance of JPA
> or instantiation of some form of USG oversight, no?
>
> As it happens, the African Union is for continuance.  So are Verizon,
> VeriSign and some organization called the Coalition for Online Trademark
> Protection along with assorted others.  Vint Cerf and ISOC are for
> concluding JPA.
>
> Carlton Samuels
> The University of the West Indies
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
>> ------
>>
>> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
>> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>>
>> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the
>> JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's
>> failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially
>> assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the
>> global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in
>> one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy
>> outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire,
>> and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and
>> completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder
>> global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international
>> instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that
>> can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep
>> ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal
>> accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's
>> Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to
>> limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead,
>> the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure
>> that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But
>> to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the
>> acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>>
>> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and
>> XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of
>> Information Studies
>> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
>> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and
>> Public Affairs
>> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University
>> Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090609/71dc9f13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jun  9 10:00:28 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:00:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
In-Reply-To: <61a136f40906090652y712ee9cei28ed6e7c2620395b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <61a136f40906080752v4ef064cdn95277f67f7fe0850@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A46@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <61a136f40906090652y712ee9cei28ed6e7c2620395b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7EC9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

That's precisely what I mean. You can't just count comments, not all of them are perceived as equal by the Commerce Dept.

________________________________
From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:52 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN

Milton:
Depends on how you interpret the meaning of "statistics".  As an old Washington hand, I happen to know that companies with paid lobbyists, PACs and deep pockets tend to have multiplier effects in the Congress that pales the single name identifier.

Carlton
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Carlton:
Statistics are meaningless here.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090609/82a3ce98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jun  9 10:17:55 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:47:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <1244551528.4121.409.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>	 <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>	 <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>	 <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch> <1244551528.4121.409.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A2E6F13.7080509@itforchange.net>

The enclosed was sent to NTIA yesterday as comments by ITfC.   It mainly 
address external accountability/ oversight aspects and does not address 
ICANN's internal accountability issues on which we completely agree with 
APC's statement.


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JPA_comments_-_ITfC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72713 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090609/8f22d994/attachment.pdf>

From baptista at publicroot.org  Tue Jun  9 11:24:43 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:24:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning the
In-Reply-To: <20090608044938.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.bec506ade4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090608044938.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.bec506ade4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906090824i78ae4724v15ec25ad2d3cd486@mail.gmail.com>

My comments concerning the TLDA have to do with your exaggerated claims the
organization is mature and viable.  It is not.  A mature organization does
not publish something like:

http://tldainc.org/corporate-documents/58-legal/61-an-attempt-to-co-opt-copyright-of-tlda-intellectual-property-by-a-disgruntled-member-of-the-organization.html

this on it's web site.  When you libel and slander your own members and then
attempt to have a legal argument on the organizations web site the bottom
line is that the organization is not ready for prime time.

Let us not also forget that you falsified our bylaws.  That has been well
documented.

Also when we started out we had some 30 members.  Now we have about eight or
ten.  And most of them are not happy campers.

Bottom line - as a long time members I can assure people here the TLDA is an
unfortunate joke and people here are well advised to ignore you.

Also I ask you to refrain from making any official statements on behalf of
the TLDA.  I realize you have a lot of time on your hands.  For the last 15
years you've been unemployed and unemployable so time is something you have
in abundance.

Thats fantastic.  But could you not find something better to contribute your
time to instead of the TLDA.  We need professional representation on the
TLDA board before anyone is going to take this organization seriously - and
unemployed and unemployable does not make the cut for professional
representation.

regards
joe baptista

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Karl E. Peters <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:

> Rumors of the ill health of the TLDA are greatly exaggerated!  Since the
> moderation bit was employed on a very noisy and disruptive member, progress
> has sped up remarkably and several once quiet members have come out of the
> shadows to be very helpful. With this continued peace, we should be in
> very good shape very soon! (Be careful when your only source of information
> on a group is from a very disgruntled member who is well known for his list
> antics to disrupt things that are not going his way.)
>
> -Karl E. Peters
>
> P.S. My comments on the state of the internet stand.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning
> the TLDA
> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Mon, June 08, 2009 1:42 am
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
> Cc: Bradley Thornton <Bradley at northtech.us>, Karl Auerbach
> <karl at CaveBear.com>, "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>, Eric
> Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
>
> Dr. Joe and all,
>
> Sorry to hear about the TLDA's problems. Lets all hope that
> they get worked out in the near term.
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > I noticed that Karl Peters the CFO at the TLDA (Top Level Domain
> > Association) has posted something concerning the TLDA. I am a member
> > of the TLDA and have personal knowledge of the organization.
> >
> > I disagree with the claims made by Mr. Peters to the governance list
> > which indicated the TLDA was mature. The TLDA is only mature in one
> > way - the organization has been around since 1999.
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/dnso/tlda.html
> >
> > In the 10 years it has been in existence it has accomplished
> > absolutely nothing.
> >
> > At this time the organizations directors are under contract to deliver
> > on their primary mandate as per TLDA bylaws. The organization has
> > till July 15th to full fill its obligations to the membership. I'll
> > let you know if it does.
> >
> > Until then please consider the TLDA an organization of clowns who have
> > yet to deliver.
> >
> > I have attached below a note to Bradley Thornton, a TLDA director with
> > my comments concerning Karl's statement to governance for further
> > information.
> >
> > kindest regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Joe Baptista<baptista at publicroot.org>
> > Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
> > Subject: Some Notes for Brad Re: [Members] [FWD: RE:[governance] US
> > Congress & the JPA]
> > To: members at tldainc.org, public at tldainc.org
> > Cc: tlda-members at googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> > Some notes for Brad
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Bradley D.
> > Thornton <Bradley at northtech.us> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > um... You say they are notorious for, "...ignoring anything
> > that does not go along with their flow..."
> >
> >
> > Sounds a lot like the TLDA today. These days I see a similarity
> > between ICANN and the TLDA. Both entrenched camps are basically
> > composed of quasi civil servants.. ICANN civil servants have
> > successful backgrounds. TLDA civil servant don't. Half our board is
> > either unemployed or unemployable and in at least one case - both.
> > They mean well - but competence does matter - and we need to upgrade
> > to be taken seriously..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't have the time right now, but I've learned a few
> > tricks here and there. When you get a list that exudes this
> > level of arrogance (First of all they're legends in their
> > own minds, but that's beside the point),
> >
> >
> > so are we - whats your point.
> >
> > If three or four people with the unpopular agenda join the
> > list and begin to generate traffic on the topics that are
> > part of their own agenda (Some of us here remember the
> > crispy-crocketts), eventually, those arrogant list members
> > can't help but take the bait and begin to respond, as they
> > just can't keep themselves from wanting to be in a
> > conversation LOL!
> >
> >
> > No - the TLDA is not ready to exclude itself from the arrogant list of
> > characters. I agree there.
> >
> > I suggest Brad - you listen carefully to your membership.
> >
> > Before the TLDA begins making advances to the community it must get
> > it's house in order and produce a TapRoot. The deadline for that is
> > coming up on July 15th. Thats the agreement the board entered into.
> > The technical aspects of the Taproot and all required policy to effect
> > decisions of the compliance committee and the publication of a
> > recommended list of TLDs. This must be in place as of July 15th.
> >
> > I would ask that you focus on that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Like I said, I don't have the time right now, but I would
> > really love to participate and help get our mission and its
> > significance out there in a discussion on such a list ;)
> >
> >
> > Some other time Brad. Right now your under obligation to produce.
> > And your first deadline is July 15th. Your next deadline is October
> > 15th. Thats when you must have in place the means to represent us at
> > ICANN.
> >
> > I will now ask the board to please have Karl Peters refrain from
> > representing the TLDA on any list outside the TLDA. Karl has been
> > involved in some serious legal issues with the TLDA. He has lost all
> > our records. He falsified our bylaws. He broke board confidentiality
> > and went on a libel and slander campaign against me. It's all in the
> > archives.
> >
> > This is not the sort of person I want representing my interests as a
> > TLDA member at ICANN or any governance list. We have a president who
> > can do a better job of it. When it comes to piling on the bull shit in
> > the executive trade - he is the best at that.
> >
> > I am of course the best at exposing the bullshit. But of all the TLDA
> > people - Gene Marsh our el presidente - is the least dirty from the
> > HEX incident that has competence in the executive foyer or any TLDA
> > issue. Gene knows when to keep his mouth shut.
> >
> > O.K. Karl - please lay of the representation. May I suggest that all
> > correspondence from you representing the TLDA be first vetted by the
> > president who can then send it one under his name.
> >
> > Please Karl - try to comply - because it's embarrassing to see this
> > fraud continue.
> >
> > kindest regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl E. Peters wrote:
> >
> > This post was what I responded on the "governance"
> > list with regard to the US congress' handling of
> > internet matters. This group is notorious for
> > ignoring anything that does not go along with
> > their flow, but I wanted to share my comments here
> > so you could see some of the fun I have on the
> > other lists. The issues dealt with here, however,
> > are the highest calling of a body like the TLDA,
> > and part of what we should be prepared to step up
> > and do. While we sometimes feel we are striving to
> > grow from a little club to a little larger club,
> > there is a real place and need for some group like
> > us. We must decide if we are to step up and be
> > that group...
> > -Karl
> > My post follows:
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE:[governance] US Congress & the JPA
> > From: "Karl E. Peters" <kpeters at tldainc.org>
> > Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 12:39 pm
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
> > "Kleinwchter,Wolfgang"
> >
> > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> >
> > All, (Please hear me out before you delete!)
> > The main responsibility of the US congress
> > as relates to the
> > internet is to protect the interests of the
> > American people and
> > the resources the nation has deployed.
> > (granted, it often does a
> > poor job of that, too!) It is important to
> > note, especially for
> > the large number of you outside the USA, that
> > there is absolutely
> > nothing to prevent you from establishing your
> > own national or
> > regional server systems and forging alliances
> > with others as they
> > benefit your people. In such a world, the
> > cultural norms of each
> > nation or region can be addressed without
> > concern of conflict with
> > the norms of another region. Each can exercise
> > the "net
> > neutrality" it finds appropriate in its system
> > and in its region
> > and the systems can all hold the Top Level
> > Domains they wish to
> > and add some that would be of particular
> > regional interest without
> > having to go through long and very expensive
> > hassles with ICANN
> > each time. The only things needed to make a
> > multi-system internet
> > work is a body to prevent potential naming
> > collisions on what
> > would then be a wider and more diverse
> > namespace. The TLDA, Inc.
> > (http://www.tldainc.org/) is a non-profit
> > organization set up and
> > now maturing so as to be able to provide this
> > TLD research and
> > coordination and other related services for the
> > many current and
> > future root systems of the world, allowing each
> > to thrive in its
> > own way, and yet protecting all of them from
> > potential collisions
> > in the event that other systems would want to
> > carry their regional
> > TLDs as well as their own.
> > Remember the original meaning of
> > "internet", the
> > inter-relationship of many networks for the
> > common good. ICANN's
> > self-serving policy is a stone around the neck
> > of the American
> > people, and MUST seem even worse for other
> > nations and cultures
> > wanting to see a vibrant and living internet
> > name space. Why spend
> > all your time trying to push the ICANN mountain
> > when you can
> > reasonably build your own highways and bi-ways
> > in your own regions
> > and tie them together where it is beneficial to
> > your people and
> > remain aloof in some other areas if that is
> > best for your system
> > and people. Much of the world has complained
> > for years of American
> > control over such resources as the internet.
> > Why? Why not build
> > their own and make it flourish ans serve their
> > people as they see fit?
> > There is no reason for the EU or the Arab
> > League or Latin
> > America or China to care what a mess ICANN
> > makes! They should make
> > competitive systems, each fitting their
> > region's cultural needs,
> > and tie them together where it makes sense by
> > carrying some of the
> > same TLDs and perhaps not some others, all by
> > local choice. Why
> > not turn the conversation to what everyone else
> > can do to make a
> > better internet, and NOT just on how to twist
> > and force ICANN into
> > being what it can not understand how to be, a
> > responsive and
> > responsible internet body? If each major
> > population that has a
> > stake in the internet actually invested in it,
> > they would have
> > what they want with FAR less trouble. Then, you
> > would be REAL
> > stakeholder and not just an unhappy user group.
> >
> > -Karl E. Peters
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the
> > JPA
> > From: "Kleinwchter,_Wolfgang"
> >
> > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> > Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 5:20 am
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > The whole hearing was an astonishing piece
> > of ignorance by
> > some US congress members and some US
> > industry representatives
> > with regard to legitimate interests of
> > stakeholders and
> > nations around the world. Look into the
> > references of the
> > study of the Technology Policy Institute
> > (Lenard/White) -
> > which was obviously the main source for
> > members of the
> > committee - and you get a clue what you can
> > expect if these
> > groups will get decision making power over
> > the future of
> > Internet Governance ;-(((. If this happens
> > we will see another
> > round of a global ideological battles over
> > the future of the
> > Internet with numerous unitended side
> > effects, very
> > counterproducitve both to the globnal
> > Internet community and
> > the US itself. The global view was totally
> > ouf of the radar of
> > the majority of the committee members and
> > some of the
> > panelists. What a gulf between the open
> > eyes of the elected
> > president and the narrow view of these
> > group of people.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > You received this message as a subscriber
> > on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any
> > message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions,
> > see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > You received this message as a subscriber on
> > the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message
> > to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at tldainc.org
> >
> > ttp://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_tldainc.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bradley D. Thornton
> > Manager Network Services
> > NorthTech Computer
> > TEL: +1.949.544.1931
> > http://NorthTech.US <http://northtech.us/>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at tldainc.org
> > http://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_tldainc.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > www.publicroot.org
> > PublicRoot Consortium
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
> > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
> >
> > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > www.publicroot.org
> > PublicRoot Consortium
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
> > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
> >
> > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
> "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
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/20090609/f50054ea/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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu  Tue Jun  9 11:42:00 2009
From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:42:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Summary of IGP comments on the NTIA ICANN
 proceeding
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E4A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <28cfc1a40906090842v719a7e46p80cf5512a9c77f61@mail.gmail.com>

It doesn't appear that NTIA posted the most recently submitted comments
yet.  If you haven't already figured it out, you can get ours at
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/6/8/4214803.html

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Only the summary, please go to the NTIA site for the complete comments.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html
> ------
>
> "The global challenges we face demand global institutions that work."
> - President Barack Obama, 2008
>
> ICANN lacks accountability and its processes are full of problems, but the
> JPA is not the right tool to use to fix them. The JPA contributes to ICANN's
> failings. Although it was intended to provide a vehicle for impartially
> assessing the adequacy of ICANN's legal and institutional framework for the
> global Internet, in reality it does nothing but invite the stakeholders in
> one privileged country to complain to their own government about policy
> outcomes they don't like. The U.S. government needs to let the JPA expire,
> and immediately initiate an international agreement that formalizes and
> completes the transition of ICANN to a stable form of multi-stakeholder
> global governance rooted in a nonprofit corporation. This international
> instrument should be used to provide a shared, global legal framework that
> can keep ICANN independent but accountable. It should be designed to keep
> ICANN focused on its narrow coordinating mission, to restore internal
> accountability of the Board to its membership, to check abuses by ICANN's
> Board, to delegate authority over ccTLDs to national governments, and to
> limit interference in or abuse of ICANN by governments. By taking the lead,
> the US can gain buy-in from other governments for its own model and ensure
> that the transition does not harm any of its own legitimate interests. But
> to succeed in completing the transition, the U.S. will have to win the
> acceptance of a critical mass of other countries and peoples.
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and
> XS4All Professor, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Brenden Kuerbis, Doctoral candidate, Syracuse University School of
> Information Studies
> Dr. Michel van Eeten, Technology University of Delft, Netherlands
> Dr. John Mathiason, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and
> Public Affairs
> Dr. Derrick Cogburn, School of International Service, American University
> Dr. Lee McKnight, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090609/4e5fca8e/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 Jun  9 13:10:57 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:10:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning the
 TLDA
Message-ID: <20090609101057.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.82c2b1e8a7.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090609/b272461b/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  Tue Jun  9 22:17:36 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Tue,  9 Jun 2009 19:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning
In-Reply-To: 20090609101057.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.82c2b1e8a7.wbe@email.secureserver.net
Message-ID: <sympa.1244598820.58935.630@lists.cpsr.org>

Karl (& Joe),

I'm just a by-stander to your respective views, but Joe has been very
pro-active since the begining of the fight with ICANN for the TLD spaces, along
with Chris Rambler (.web), around the time of Joop's original Icann-at-Large.
He was part of keeping the voice of an atlarge-alive, when we needed ground
support. I hope your organization can find ground and gain traction.

That aside, what do you two think about John Berard of Quintaris.com, recent
endeavor into the name-space with Pool?

Quintaris Pool Venture:
http://www.quintaris.pool.com/
Offered Domain extentions (in left collum)

Quintaris pitch:
Stake your Claim to the Internet’s Newest Addresses
http://www.quintaris.com/blog/news-release-stake-your-claim/____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun  9 23:09:09 2009
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:09:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A2E6F13.7080509@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>	 <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>	 <4A2C93E5.8030506@itforchange.net>	 <05A7E690-21D0-4244-9278-AE0E5442AB73@graduateinstitute.ch> <1244551528.4121.409.camel@anriette-laptop> <4A2E6F13.7080509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7F4FA975-814B-4333-8E13-773CE0DE2B4C@psg.com>


hi,

while everyone is posting their statements, here is my individual  
statement.

a.

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response to NTIA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55653 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090610/d1002b4b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------





From avri at acm.org  Wed Jun 10 03:13:22 2009
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:13:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2F3264.271AC139@ix.netcom.com>
References: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A2D1EF1.1060507@gmail.com> <CAE43106-3C69-40C8-A983-595E76EB57EE@telus.net> <4A2DB7B1.6090007@gmail.com> <57501765-1F3C-4642-B73F-E174469984E8@graduateinstitute.ch> <5DFCD220-AB4A-46EF-9127-B8F02D30180D@acm.org> <4A2F3264.271AC139@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <66487ED4-83AB-4213-B975-99030DA7D456@acm.org>


contrary to better my better sense,

i can only reply that i find it a giggle that anyone believes i have  
been deferential to governments.

a.

On 10 Jun 2009, at 06:11, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:

> Avri and all,
>
>  Gee!  I wish you took the same attitude and position in respect
> to the GNSO.  But alas, no...  >:(

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

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


From kpeters at tldainc.org  Wed Jun 10 07:09:44 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:09:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning
Message-ID: <20090610040943.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.71aa8f943f.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090610/6d6ec8ba/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  Wed Jun 10 22:59:51 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning
In-Reply-To: sympa.1244598820.58935.630@lists.cpsr.org
Message-ID: <sympa.1244688984.83343.252@lists.cpsr.org>

Karl,

I appreciate your being upset with Joe, he ran his mouth off, ok. 
Enemy or not, our numbers are pretty-thin on this list and we'd like it to stay
a free speech zone, although we have had to censor Jeff.

I had several exchanges with Chris back in the IDNO days, around the time Icann
was holding his family's investment of 50 grand. 

Vint was at the helm (officially & un-officially) and mostly concerned with the
MoU, and as I recall Ester (Ms.AT&T) was on some panel(?) as well as the
Verisign Rep (I forgot their name). 

Anyway thing are today as they were then, the reason Icann couldn't get off the
dime on TDL's was AT&T (Ester) and Verisign had the notion of cornering the
market share of the DNS, and AT&T had the blessing of the Commerce Committee.
So you guys suffered as things played out, then they (Icann) screwed you out of
time* & money.

Things are the same today, the Oversite Committee extended the JPA at the
bequest of the Telecoms (i.e.: AT&T) that happened last week. Big Brother's
AT&T is very lethargic when it comes to advancing things, very GM I might add.
(Ret.: How many of you have AT&T fiber-optic broadband ?)

Honestly I don't thinks there's much fight left in/for the DNS. With IDNs and a
world of .semantics, consumer protection (rights) is where we'll need to
develop.

-

(*timing of your product launch, marketvalue of TDLs then, was more than today)

See: Most firms unaware of Web domain changes 
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE5576DM20090609
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun 11 01:41:56 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:11:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] lc
Message-ID: <4A309924.5070200@itforchange.net>

 quote form lessig interview continued

And so, what we need is public policy that's driven by the public, by 
institutions in the public, that set the rules that lead companies to do 
the right thing. So I think it's appropriate for the United States 
government to decide: do we want to impose requirements on our companies 
to make them comply with standards that we think are important? And 
that's the question, not whether we want to shame Google or shame Yahoo! 
into behavior, which may just not be consistent with


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/ee2ad0aa/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  Thu Jun 11 01:59:37 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:29:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <4A309924.5070200@itforchange.net>
References: <4A309924.5070200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A309D49.10700@itforchange.net>

Apologies for wrong posting

meant for internal work on a presentation

Parminder wrote:
>  quote form lessig interview continued
>
> And so, what we need is public policy that's driven by the public, by 
> institutions in the public, that set the rules that lead companies to 
> do the right thing. So I think it's appropriate for the United States 
> government to decide: do we want to impose requirements on our 
> companies to make them comply with standards that we think are 
> important? And that's the question, not whether we want to shame 
> Google or shame Yahoo! into behavior, which may just not be consistent 
> with
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/73a3bbff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jun 11 03:48:51 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:48:51 +0800
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <4A309D49.10700@itforchange.net>
References: <4A309924.5070200@itforchange.net> <4A309D49.10700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C1C97AFB-8252-4EFD-BA8E-5F456413C0D0@ciroap.org>

On 11/06/2009, at 1:59 PM, Parminder wrote:

> Apologies for wrong posting
>
> meant for internal work on a presentation

Interesting though; can you post a link to the presentation when  
you're done?

-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun 11 04:41:32 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:11:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <C1C97AFB-8252-4EFD-BA8E-5F456413C0D0@ciroap.org>
References: <4A309924.5070200@itforchange.net> <4A309D49.10700@itforchange.net> <C1C97AFB-8252-4EFD-BA8E-5F456413C0D0@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4A30C33C.30904@itforchange.net>



Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 11/06/2009, at 1:59 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> Apologies for wrong posting
>>
>> meant for internal work on a presentation
>
> Interesting though; can you post a link to the presentation when 
> you're done?
Jeremy, I have responded offlist, but seeing that there indeed is a 
connection to the industry-led governance model that we have been 
discussing, I will give the complete quote of Lawrence Lessig preceding 
the one which I sent earlier.

"But I think one big problem here is imagining companies as the leaders 
in public policymaking. You know, companies are in the business of 
making money. And if we begin to imagine a world where we trust 
companies to do good public policy, then we're fools, because they'll do 
good public policy when it makes sense for them from a financial 
perspective to do it, but when it doesn't make sense for them from a 
financial perspective to do it, they won't."

What he says is simple and generally universally accepted. Adam Smith 
said long ago. " People of the same trade seldom meet together... but 
the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public". What does it 
say about industry-led 'regulatory systems'.

However the fact that such simple truths have to be re-asserted, but 
still ignored by many, speaks of the new forms of power that big 
corporations increasingly have to change our frames of thought and 
action, in some very basic and oft hidden ways. It becomes difficult to 
separate which actors, willy nilly, become agents of such new forms of 
dominations, but an introspection on this issue may be useful.

parminder










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/a49ad717/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From aizu at anr.org  Thu Jun 11 10:16:01 2009
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:16:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C65267ED.2D27%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <p06240806c65127710119@192.168.1.86>
	 <C65267ED.2D27%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <a5509d940906110716j22f0346bh2fb80d343c944040@mail.gmail.com>

I hope things are never TOO late.

Yes, I know it is past the deadline, and I have not particiapted in any of
the online discussion about the JPA public comment, with all excuses
possible ;-).

I think the final statement below is a balanced one, if not that strong, and
reflecting the current state of play, thus my YES.

izumi

2009/6/8 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Thanks everyone
>
> While respecting that two members voted against this statement, sufficient
> support has been given for it to be adopted. I will be posting the statement
> as below today.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>>  non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>>  Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
>>>>  World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
>>>>  forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
>>>>  society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
>>>>  hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more
>>>> about
>>>>  our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
>>>>
>>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
>>>>  Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>
>>>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>>  principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>>  according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>>  people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>>  Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>>  co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>>  security.
>>>>
>>>>  On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
>>>>  that global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to
>>>>  a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable
>>>>  arrangements for participation, that ICANN is subject to due process
>>>>  procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
>>>>  believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
>>>>  viable solution.
>>>>
>>>>   Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>>>  mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>>>  a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>>>  a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
>>>>  ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>>>>
>>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>>> it
>>>>  should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
>>>> development
>>>>  of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
>>>>  transparent and inclusive process.
>>>>
>>>>  Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>>>>  certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>>>>  We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>>>>  in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
>>>>  principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way
>>>> as
>>>>  to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group.
>>>>  The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
>>>>
>>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>>  interests and Internet users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      transparency
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>>> model
>>>>  which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>
>>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> multistakeholder
>>>>  management, which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
>>>>  Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government
>>>>  has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective
>>>>  internet governance  arrangements.
>>>>
>>>>  We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a
>>>>  model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize
>>>>  that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority
>>>> over
>>>>  an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP
>>>>  addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process,
>>>>  rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these
>>>>  facts in mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
>>>>  Caucus
>>>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Thu Jun 11 11:34:39 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:34:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA comments made by or on behalf of TLD holders
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906110828l17171f1dw908c43f3d6ae75cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a20906110828l17171f1dw908c43f3d6ae75cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906110834s4c965b3ewe748504c33557829@mail.gmail.com>

Howdy:

I'm a bit disappointed the TLDA did not make any comments to the NTIA NOI
concerning the ICANN JPA with the DOC.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/index.html

As a member of this so called trade association I don't under the
circumstances feel well represented.

In any case - I did make comments on behalf of HEX TLD holders / owners:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/089.pdf

and a comment as a private individual:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/060.pdf

enjoy
joe baptista

-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/5f337702/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  Thu Jun 11 11:43:31 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:13:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] court strikes down French three strikes law
Message-ID: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/

French Three-Strikes Strikeout

Rights holders were dealt a blow Wednesday when a French court struck 
down the country's "three strikes" law, saying that "free access" to the 
internet is a human right and cannot be withheld without a judge's 
order, and that the new system presumes guilt, instead of innocence. It 
is anticipated that the government will introduce a new version of the 
bill with the same "graduated response" approach, but it may transfer 
some of the administrative powers to a court.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/85023b87/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  Thu Jun 11 11:59:04 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:29:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] court strikes down French three strikes law
In-Reply-To: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>
References: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A3129C8.1010007@itforchange.net>

full story here

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/french-revolution-meets-information-revolution-in-setback-for-hadopi-law/


Parminder wrote:
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
>
> French Three-Strikes Strikeout
>
> Rights holders were dealt a blow Wednesday when a French court struck 
> down the country's "three strikes" law, saying that "free access" to 
> the internet is a human right and cannot be withheld without a judge's 
> order, and that the new system presumes guilt, instead of innocence. 
> It is anticipated that the government will introduce a new version of 
> the bill with the same "graduated response" approach, but it may 
> transfer some of the administrative powers to a court.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090611/d8364917/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu Jun 11 12:17:51 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:17:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] court strikes down French three strikes law
In-Reply-To: <4A3129C8.1010007@itforchange.net>
References: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>
	 <4A3129C8.1010007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906110917o5354d913rbd25c61abc3ddca0@mail.gmail.com>

"but it may transfer some of the administrative powers to a court".

I believe that almost 250 years after Lois des Chartres, the French
still remain conservative to liberty.
How the intended to withhold  free acess without a judge’s order is
something very baffling.
Does "three strikes" apply to FOSS?. I think this is where the Judge
got the opportunity to hit.

Aaron

On 6/11/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> full story here
>
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/french-revolution-meets-information-revolution-in-setback-for-hadopi-law/
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
>>
>> French Three-Strikes Strikeout
>>
>> Rights holders were dealt a blow Wednesday when a French court struck
>> down the country's "three strikes" law, saying that "free access" to
>> the internet is a human right and cannot be withheld without a judge's
>> order, and that the new system presumes guilt, instead of innocence.
>> It is anticipated that the government will introduce a new version of
>> the bill with the same "graduated response" approach, but it may
>> transfer some of the administrative powers to a court.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Thu Jun 11 16:21:05 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:21:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] court strikes down French three strikes law
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906110917o5354d913rbd25c61abc3ddca0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>	 <4A3129C8.1010007@itforchange.net> <a6bc8cb30906110917o5354d913rbd25c61abc3ddca0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A316731.2050803@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron schrieb:
> "but it may transfer some of the administrative powers to a court".

FYI: Our friends from La Quadrature du Net are pretty confident that the
HADPI law is completely dead now.

> Does "three strikes" apply to FOSS?.

Of course not. FOSS can be freely distributed.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 19:17:28 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:17:28 +0800
Subject: [governance] court strikes down French three strikes law
In-Reply-To: <4A316731.2050803@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <4A312623.2030607@itforchange.net>	 <4A3129C8.1010007@itforchange.net> <a6bc8cb30906110917o5354d913rbd25c61abc3ddca0@mail.gmail.com> <4A316731.2050803@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <E1E5A757-D5E2-4885-81E4-BFD5F821E2C8@ciroap.org>

On 12/06/2009, at 4:21 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:

>> Does "three strikes" apply to FOSS?.
>
> Of course not. FOSS can be freely distributed.

Though, Linux Australia was once on the receiving end of a take down  
notice for hosting software that had a similar name to a Hollywood  
movie.  I kid you not.

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

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

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 07:04:02 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:04:02 +0500
Subject: [governance] Canadian Patents Appeal Board Rules Against Business
 Method Patents
Message-ID: <701af9f70906120404lbaac0ffhb69982f86153240d@mail.gmail.com>

An intelligent decision worth sharing from Canada:

Canadian Patents Appeal Board Rules Against Business Method Patents
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4034/135/

-- 

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jun 12 16:37:40 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:37:40 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
In-Reply-To: <C6527A52.2D3B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C658F9B4.3026%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


A brief update here -

Imagining the Internet have agreed to work with us on this, and I suggest we
proceed with that. What we do need to do by 15th is scope out in more detail
potential partners, speakers, others we should approach. So I would
appreciate all suggestions ­ also all offers to join a small working group
on this. We do need to flesh this out a little more within 2 days!


Ian Peter


On 8/06/09 8:20 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
> working group to run this workshop.
> 
> Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any suggestions
> to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe we have to
> improve that this week.
> 
> I don¹t see a natural merge for this workshop.
> 
> Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a few
> volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist, whichever you
> prefer 
> 
> Current proposal is below.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from
>  
> Concise Description:
> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain
> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities
> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the
> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its
> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing
> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical
> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it
> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring
> participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes
> its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of evolution and
> transnationalization of Internet governance from various standpoints and the
> direction in which we might move from here.
>  
> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of
> what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along
> with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>  
>  
> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
> workshop fall under?
> Critical Internet Resources
>  
> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
> If so, please provide the link to the report:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-w
> orkshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-s
> overeignty
>  
> Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
> If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
> should organize it?
> Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting
> other players as appropriate
>  
> The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus
>  
> Contact Person: Ian Peter
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090613/4731b64f/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  Fri Jun 12 16:40:37 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:40:37 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop 197 - Network Neutrality - Exploring a
In-Reply-To: <C6527B16.2D3E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C658FA65.3028%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

A brief update here ­ we have preliminary agreement with Diplo Foundation
and also Technology Policy Institute to combine the three suggested
workshops on this topic and aim for a three hour session.  So we will
proceed along those lines for now.




On 8/06/09 8:23 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Again we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
> working group to run this workshop.
> 
> Details of our previous submission are below. Ive suggested in a separate
> message we merge with Diplo workshop on the same subject. Ginger will approach
> them 
> 
> We  have some suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this below. Can
> we have a few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist,
> whichever you prefer
> 
> Current proposal is below.
> 
> 
> Title: Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
>  
> Concise Description:
> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN
> principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the
> Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by
> it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN
> principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While
> proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to
> assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially
> vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates.
>  
> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
> workshop fall under?
> Openness
>  
> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
> If so, please provide the link to the report:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-w
> orkshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-s
> overeignty
>  
> Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
> If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
> should organize it?
> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in
> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society
> advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil
> society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of
> Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are
> involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but
> will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country
> commentators in particular.
>  
> The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:Internet Governance Caucus
>  
> Contact Person: Ian Peter
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090613/9afec476/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 dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 18:46:40 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
Message-ID: <227125.29072.qm@web45208.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>



--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 1:37 PM



Re: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from here (workshop 196)


A brief update here -



Imagining the Internet have agreed to work with us on this, and I suggest we proceed with that. What we do need to do by 15th is scope out in more detail potential partners, speakers, others we should approach. So I would appreciate all suggestions – also all offers to join a small working group on this. We do need to flesh this out a little more within 2 days!





Ian Peter





On 8/06/09 8:20 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:



Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small working group to run this workshop.



Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any suggestions to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe we have to improve that this week.



I don’t see a natural merge for this workshop.  



Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist, whichever you prefer 



Current proposal is below.



Ian Peter





Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from

 

Concise Description:

The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain

historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities

around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the

Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its

governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing

however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical

artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it

running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring

participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of evolution and transnationalization of Internet governance from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here.

 

The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each.

 

 

Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under?

Critical Internet Resources

 

Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes

If so, please provide the link to the report:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty

 

Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes

If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think should organize it?

Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting other players as appropriate

 

The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus

 

Contact Person: Ian Peter

 


7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777







      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090612/02fd8d6a/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  Fri Jun 12 19:48:24 2009
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:48:24 +0800
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
In-Reply-To: <C658F9B4.3026%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6527A52.2D3B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <C658F9B4.3026%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <58762b1a0906121648k3bde5896j4bea709de08dec63@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

Sorry I've been silent on this list since joining.

I am planning to attend the IGF and am happy to help with this - my research
focus is the Chinese internet, free expression/censorship, etc. Currently
working on a book about the impact of the Chinese Internet on the rest of
the internet. I am also co-founder of Global Voices (globalvoicesonline.org),
and would be happy to help recommend articulate online activists from pretty
much any part of the world as you strive to achieve geographical balance in
this panel.

I certainly suggest inviting at least one Chinese speaker. Chinese blogger
Isaac Mao was at the last IGF and spoke in the "expression under repression"
WISIS workshop in Tunisia, speaks good English, is up on Internet
governance, and can speak for Chinese civil society - a valuable
counter-balance to the Chinese government voices at the IGF. More about
Isaac:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/05/blogging.digitalmedia
http://freesouls.cc/essays/07-isaac-mao-sharism.html

Best,
Rebecca

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> A brief update here -
>
> Imagining the Internet have agreed to work with us on this, and I suggest
> we proceed with that. What we do need to do by 15th is scope out in more
> detail potential partners, speakers, others we should approach. So I would
> appreciate all suggestions – also all offers to join a small working group
> on this. We do need to flesh this out a little more within 2 days!
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> On 8/06/09 8:20 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
> working group to run this workshop.
>
> Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any
> suggestions to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe
> we have to improve that this week.
>
> I don’t see a natural merge for this workshop.
>
> Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a
> few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist,
> whichever you prefer
>
> Current proposal is below.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from
>
> Concise Description:
> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain
> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities
> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the
> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its
> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing
> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical
> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it
> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring
> participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which
> includes its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of
> evolution and transnationalization of Internet governance from various
> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here.
>
> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of
> what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along
> with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>
>
> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does
> your workshop fall under?
> Critical Internet Resources
>
> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
> If so, please provide the link to the report:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty
>
> Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
> If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
> should organize it?
> Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting
> other players as appropriate
>
> The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus
>
> Contact Person: Ian Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


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

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/20090613/18dd5445/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 Jun 12 19:57:30 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:27:30 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop 197 - Network Neutrality - Exploring a
In-Reply-To: <C658FA65.3028%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C658FA65.3028%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A32EB6A.5090501@gmail.com>

Ian, thanks for taking this forward while I have been in transit. Please 
go ahead with this, but I will be more active on the NN working group 
soon. As Ian says, Diplo is happy to merge, particularly in an expanded 
3-hour slot.

Thanks, Ginger

Ian Peter wrote:
> A brief update here – we have preliminary agreement with Diplo 
> Foundation and also Technology Policy Institute to combine the three 
> suggested workshops on this topic and aim for a three hour session. So 
> we will proceed along those lines for now.
>
>
>
>
> On 8/06/09 8:23 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>     Again we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish
>     a small working group to run this workshop.
>
>     Details of our previous submission are below. Ive suggested in a
>     separate message we merge with Diplo workshop on the same subject.
>     Ginger will approach them
>
>     We have some suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this
>     below. Can we have a few volunteers to be the organising group?
>     Either onlist or offlist, whichever you prefer
>
>     Current proposal is below.
>
>
>     Title: Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
>
>     Concise Description:
>     There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some
>     kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic
>     nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet
>     users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent
>     efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan,
>     the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous
>     national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the
>     transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially
>     vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN
>     debates.
>
>     Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities
>     does your workshop fall under?
>     Openness
>
>     Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
>     If so, please provide the link to the report:
>     http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty
>
>     Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
>     If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do
>     you think should organize it?
>     Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role
>     in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press
>     (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of
>     Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group),
>     Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of
>     Communications. There are other specific countries or examples
>     that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we
>     don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out
>     additional developing country commentators in particular.
>
>     The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:Internet Governance Caucus
>
>     Contact Person: Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Sat Jun 13 15:35:08 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:35:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
In-Reply-To: <58762b1a0906121648k3bde5896j4bea709de08dec63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C6527A52.2D3B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C658F9B4.3026%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <58762b1a0906121648k3bde5896j4bea709de08dec63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0906131235t42386e8byd48fa63aea2cc380@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rebecca and all,

I agree. I personally met Isaac Mao and he is quite articulate. He also has
many contacts with Chinese bloggers and one is Zola, the famous Chinese
blogger who featured in TIME magazine before.  He has actually introduced me
to Zola and another Chinese blogger who have much to say about Chinese
authority with regards to IG issues.

Regards,
Charity

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon <
rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian,
>
> Sorry I've been silent on this list since joining.
>
> I am planning to attend the IGF and am happy to help with this - my
> research focus is the Chinese internet, free expression/censorship, etc.
> Currently working on a book about the impact of the Chinese Internet on the
> rest of the internet. I am also co-founder of Global Voices (
> globalvoicesonline.org), and would be happy to help recommend articulate
> online activists from pretty much any part of the world as you strive to
> achieve geographical balance in this panel.
>
> I certainly suggest inviting at least one Chinese speaker. Chinese blogger
> Isaac Mao was at the last IGF and spoke in the "expression under repression"
> WISIS workshop in Tunisia, speaks good English, is up on Internet
> governance, and can speak for Chinese civil society - a valuable
> counter-balance to the Chinese government voices at the IGF. More about
> Isaac:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/05/blogging.digitalmedia
> http://freesouls.cc/essays/07-isaac-mao-sharism.html
>
> Best,
> Rebecca
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A brief update here -
>>
>> Imagining the Internet have agreed to work with us on this, and I suggest
>> we proceed with that. What we do need to do by 15th is scope out in more
>> detail potential partners, speakers, others we should approach. So I would
>> appreciate all suggestions – also all offers to join a small working group
>> on this. We do need to flesh this out a little more within 2 days!
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> On 8/06/09 8:20 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
>> working group to run this workshop.
>>
>> Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any
>> suggestions to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe
>> we have to improve that this week.
>>
>> I don’t see a natural merge for this workshop.
>>
>> Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a
>> few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist,
>> whichever you prefer
>>
>> Current proposal is below.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from
>>
>> Concise Description:
>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain
>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities
>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the
>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its
>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing
>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical
>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it
>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring
>> participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which
>> includes its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of
>> evolution and transnationalization of Internet governance from various
>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here.
>>
>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of
>> what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along
>> with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>>
>>
>> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does
>> your workshop fall under?
>> Critical Internet Resources
>>
>> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
>> If so, please provide the link to the report:
>>
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty
>>
>> Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
>> If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
>> should organize it?
>> Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting
>> other players as appropriate
>>
>> The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> Contact Person: Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rebecca MacKinnon
> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong
> Kong
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090613/f94917c5/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  Mon Jun 15 11:53:44 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:53:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
Message-ID: <874c02a20906150853r32af6e27k696dd49fc2fe7786@mail.gmail.com>

This is the official URL for Peking University - it's in IDN

http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/

how many people here can surf to that URL?  I can see it.  but any one on
the ICANN root can't.  Chinese domains can only be seen in china or to those
outside china who see the chinese root system.

cheers
joe baptista

p.s. where is icann in this equation?

-- 
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/20090615/0fac68ee/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 Jun 15 14:09:30 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:09:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
Message-ID: <20090615110930.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.abdf38bf85.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

Does the site you can see through your posted link look substantially
different than this one (http://en.pku.edu.cn/ ) that came up through
ASK.COM? If they are different, there is a story here. Otherwise, the
ramification is the obvious for ICANN, it is ever more marginalized. Of
course, that will come as a surprise only to ICANN. The rest of the
world can see the writing on the wall...

Karl E. Peters
620 Sea Island Road, #123
St. Simons Island, GA 31522  USA

Tel.: (912) 638-1638

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he
cannot lose."  -Jim Elliot

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
> From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
> Date: Mon, June 15, 2009 11:53 am
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,  At-Large Worldwide
> <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> This is the official URL for Peking University - it's in IDN
> http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/
> how many people here can surf to that URL?  I can see it.  but any one on
> the ICANN root can't.  Chinese domains can only be seen in china or to those
> outside china who see the chinese root system.
> cheers
> joe baptista
> p.s. where is icann in this equation?
> --
> 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<hr>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Mon Jun 15 22:00:17 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:00:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
In-Reply-To: <20090615110930.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.abdf38bf85.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090615110930.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.abdf38bf85.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906151900j25ea5a4dv983e0b6a8d2e71f@mail.gmail.com>

Karl - I have no idea what your going on about - as usual.  In fact the site
you are a looking at is the English default site for Peking University.  The
site seen at http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/ is the same as
http://www.pku.edu.cn/ - the only difference is that one site is available
via an IANA TLD (.cn) and the other is available via a Chinese National TLD
(.xn--fiqs8s).  In fact in Chinese the proper URL for this is
http://北京大学.中国/ <http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/> and as you can see
uses Chinese characters.

This is not a surprise to ICANN nor any one else who has been paying
attention to China.  The Chinese National TLDs have existed since early 2005
- and were tested I think way back in 2003.

The only point I was making is that 300 millions people in China can see the
Chinese TLD system - the rest of the world under ICANN can't.  I don't even
thing the TLDA can see them.

cheers
joe baptista

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Karl E. Peters <kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:

> Does the site you can see through your posted link look substantially
> different than this one (http://en.pku.edu.cn/ ) that came up through
> ASK.COM? If they are different, there is a story here. Otherwise, the
> ramification is the obvious for ICANN, it is ever more marginalized. Of
> course, that will come as a surprise only to ICANN. The rest of the
> world can see the writing on the wall...
>
> Karl E. Peters
> 620 Sea Island Road, #123
> St. Simons Island, GA 31522  USA
>
> Tel.: (912) 638-1638
>
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he
> cannot lose."  -Jim Elliot
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
> > From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
> > Date: Mon, June 15, 2009 11:53 am
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,  At-Large Worldwide
> > <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > This is the official URL for Peking University - it's in IDN
> > http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/
> > how many people here can surf to that URL?  I can see it.  but any one on
> > the ICANN root can't.  Chinese domains can only be seen in china or to
> those
> > outside china who see the chinese root system.
> > cheers
> > joe baptista
> > p.s. where is icann in this equation?
> > --
> > 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
> <hr>____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, 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/20090615/58e767e0/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  Tue Jun 16 00:08:28 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
In-Reply-To: 874c02a20906151900j25ea5a4dv983e0b6a8d2e71f@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1245124413.90873.44@lists.cpsr.org>

Hey Joe,

I think its' to technical for most on this list,
but for thoses who 'dig' it, I supect your using the latest version of Bind 9.x

Try updating yor Bind here:

https://www.isc.org/download/software/current

-

BIND 9.4.3-P2 is a Current - Production Release, published 20 March, 2009.
Includes security patch for DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) Read more &
download 

P.S.: you can also modify it with utility patches of course.

>Can anyone surf to peking university?
No, but as a Kid at the beach ... I once tried to dig a hole to China and
struck water!

Surf Up!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 04:06:20 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:20 +1000
Subject: [governance] FW: IGF - Single session on Network Neutrality:
 merging 4 proposed sessions
In-Reply-To: <OFAC43745D.74F70628-ONC12575D7.002BEDC4-C12575D7.002BF5AD@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <C65D8F9C.319D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


------ Forwarded Message
> From: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:00:09 +0200
> To: Vladimir Radunovic <vladar at diplomacy.edu>
> Cc: 'Chuck Kisselburg' <Chuck.Kisselburg at communitydns.net>, 'Garland McCoy'
> <gmccoy at techpolicyinstitute.org>, 'Ian Peter' <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, 'Jovan
> Kurbalija' <jovank at diplomacy.edu>, 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade at hotmail.com>,
> 'Parminder' <parminder at itforchange.net>, <paul.kane at communitydns.net>,
> <VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>, 'Vladimir Radunovic' <vladar at diplomacy.edu>
> Subject: Re: IGF - Single session on Network Neutrality: merging 4 proposed
> sessions
> 

> Thank you very much for this. We are in the process of examining all the
> answers received from workshop organizers and will get back in touch with news
> soon.
> 
> Best Regards
> IGF Secretariat
> "Vladimir Radunovic" <vladar at diplomacy.edu>
> 
> 
>>>>> "Vladimir Radunovic" <vladar at diplomacy.edu> 15/06/2009 21:25
> 
> To 
> 
> "'IGF'" <IGF at unog.ch>, "'Markus KUMMER'" <MKUMMER at unog.ch>
> 
> cc 
> 
> "'Ian Peter'" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "'Parminder'"
> <parminder at itforchange.net>, <VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>, "'Jovan Kurbalija'"
> <jovank at diplomacy.edu>, "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "'Garland
> McCoy'" <gmccoy at techpolicyinstitute.org>, <paul.kane at communitydns.net>,
> "'Chuck Kisselburg'" <Chuck.Kisselburg at communitydns.net>, "'Vladimir
> Radunovic'" <vladar at diplomacy.edu>
> 
> Subject 
> 
> IGF - Single session on Network Neutrality: merging 4 proposed sessions
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I am happy to inform that the organisers of the 4 proposed sessions related
> to the issue of Network Neutrality (NN) have agreed to work jointly on a
> single session on NN for the IGF meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh:
> 
> 1) "Network Management-Examining the Issue and Implications for Development"
> by Technology Policy Institute (no. 183, now no. 296)
> 2) "Net Neutrality: A User Perspective" by DiploFoundation (no. 184, to be
> updated)
> 3) "Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles" by
> Internet Governance Caucus (no. 197, to be updated)
> 4) "Effective Resiliency and Stability Through the Internet's Substructure"
> by The Domain Name System Infrastructure Resilience (DIR) Task Force (no.
> 219, to be updated)
> 
> The merged workshop will map the field through technical, economical,
> socio-cultural and user perspective, discuss implications to development,
> analyse the interests and challenges of various stakeholders involved
> (technical community, business, users, regulators...) and aim at identifying
> a zone of a possible agreement of all the stakeholders related to basic
> Network Neutrality guiding principles and concerns.
> 
> The organisers/partners will update their proposals at the IGF web;
> alternatively and if more convenient, a single proposal will be made under
> on of the existing, while removing the others.
> 
> Please advice for the right way forward.
> 
> Finally, the organisers appeal to the Secretariat to provide the extended
> session model (3 hours) to this workshop and the topic of Net Neutrality, in
> order to be able to involve all relevant stakeholders and give enough time
> to the audience to actively participate and reflect with their own concerns
> re. Net Neutrality.
> 
> Please acknowledge the receipt.
> 
> Best regards!
> 
>  Vladimir Radunovic
>  DiploFoundation
> 
>  here also on behalf of Technology Policy Institute, Internet
> Governance Caucus and The Domain Name System Infrastructure Resilience (DIR)
> Task Force 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Save a tree. Don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.
> *
> 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>  
> Vladimir Radunovic
> Coordinator
> Internet Governance Programmes
> DiploFoundation 
> email: vladar at diplomacy.edu
> web: www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>  
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>  
> "Kome zakon lezi u topuzu,
> tragovi mu smrde necovjestvom."
>  
> 
> "Along his path who make the Might his Right
> Rise stenches of inhuman cruelty."
> /by James Wiles/
>  
> 
> Petar II Petrovic Njegos
> (1813-1851)
>  
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
> SPAMfighter has removed 26786 of my spam emails to date.
> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
> 
> The Professional version does not have this message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0004.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0005.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0006.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0007.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/d252da43/attachment-0008.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Jun 16 08:55:32 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:55:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Can anyone surf to peking university?
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1245124413.90873.44@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1245124413.90873.44@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906160555k3d35b56difde74d7194aeb556@mail.gmail.com>

see comments below:

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>wrote:

> Hey Joe,
>
> I think its' to technical for most on this list,
> but for thoses who 'dig' it, I supect your using the latest version of Bind
> 9.x
>

No this has nothing to do with which version of bind one is using.  The
Chinese root will resolve on any version of bind provided you have a root
zone file that see all of the Internet - as opposed to just the small IANA
slice of the Internet.

Also - I understand it's technical.  But there is nothing too technical
about it.  People who are involved in these issues have to deal and
understand the technical or they run the risk of being bamboozled by the
ICANN propaganda machine.

Let's not forget it was not that long ago that ICANN managed to convince a
lot of bright people that they held a root monopoly.  This was contrary to
the established technical facts.  Back then many roots sprung up to prove
ICANN wrong on the monopoly issue.

But a lot of very bright people failed to go the distance and investigate
those claims properly and the result is today those same people have a lot
of egg on their face.  This includes many members of the U.S. government who
accepted the ICANN propaganda as true.

The Chinese root system is the biggest kick in the ass ICANN has gotten.
300 million people see TLDs not available in the IANA root.  Thats very
significant.  It also creates a lot of technical error in the ICANN root.
Here a little technical overview of that.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/

Today that error rate has gone up a thousand fold and a good portion of it
is due to the China root system.



> BIND 9.4.3-P2 is a Current - Production Release, published 20 March, 2009.
> Includes security patch for DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) Read more &
> download


DNSSEC is a joke as well as a trap.  DNSSEC is simply an attempt to create a
false monopoly at the IANA root.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment034.pdf

It does not address the security issue of UDP attacks.  DNSSEC is getting a
good trashing on many technical conferences these days.

cheers
joe baptista


-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/6276943b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Tue Jun 16 09:57:08 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:57:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] URGENT: The Dawning of Internet Censorship in Germany
Message-ID: <4A37A4B4.50905@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

FYI, see below.
We could use some internation help before Thursday. If you can blog
about this or - even better - tip off some journalists, it would be much
appreciated.

Thanks,

Ralf

(sorry for crossposting)

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

<http://netzpolitik.org/2009/the-dawning-of-internet-censorship-in-germany/>

The Dawning of Internet Censorship in Germany

Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government – a
grand coalition between the German social democrats and conservative
party – seems united in its decision: On Thursday the parliament is to
vote on the erection of an internet censorship architecture. (...)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com  Tue Jun 16 11:09:07 2009
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:09:07 -0300
Subject: [governance] President Lula of Brazil receives ITU Award + Lula's
 speech at the ITU (in Portuguese)
Message-ID: <490d0ba60906160809u1154ceb3q6b8af7c56b9045b3@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

Abraços,

Sérgio


Press Release  International Telecommunication Union
For immediate release  Telephone:+41 22 730 6039    Telefax:+41 22 730 5933
E-mail:pressinfo<http://www.itu.int/home/feedback/index.phtml?mail=pressinfo>


President Lula of Brazil receives ITU
Award<http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2009/16.html> World
Telecommunication and Information Society Award for protecting children
online * *

*Geneva, 15 June 2009 — *President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva of Brazil
visited ITU today where he received the World Telecommunication and
Information Society Award.

Accepting the award, President Lula said he was pleased to see international
recognition for the efforts of the Brazilian government to promote digital
inclusion and a safe and democratic virtual space, especially for children
and adolescents. "We are determined to fight digital exclusion, which is
today one of the major constraints in the quest for development," President
Lula said. "To reduce inequalities we need to increase access to modern
communication technologies to a larger number of people. Access to
technologies should go beyond the communications infrastructure dimension.
People should be able to use these technologies in a critical and
interactive way. This is important to promote the involvement of all people
in the knowledge society."

President Lula described measures by his government to promote digital
inclusion, such as connecting urban public schools to broadband Internet,
distributing portable computers to students and teachers in elementary
public schools and establishing telecentres where students can learn, study
and entertain themselves. He said Brazil has reduced taxes on IT solutions
and promoted open software to reduce cost and to build an inclusive
people-centred information society linked to development.

President Lula congratulated ITU Secretary-General Dr Hamadoun Touré for
launching the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. He noted that the World Summit on
the Information Society (WSIS <http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html>) had
given ITU a mandate to strengthen cybersecurity and said ITU is the right
place to coordinate this endeavour. He said, "The challenge of cybercrimes
demonstrates the importance of discussing and debating Internet governance.
WSIS concluded that Internet governance should be transparent and democratic
with the participation of governments and civil society. ITU should be part
of this effort."

President Lula added, "In fighting paedophiles, ITU could define standards
that could be adopted by all countries. We need a multilateral instrument
that would stimulate effective international cooperation."

World Telecommunication and Information Society Day
(WTISD<http://www.itu.int/wtisd/index.html>)
brings attention to the potential of information and communication
technologies (ICT) in meeting the development and economic aspirations of
societies and on the importance of the Internet as a global resource. The
theme for 2009 is Protecting Children in Cyberspace.

WTISD marks the establishment of ITU in 1865.

Welcoming President Lula to ITU, Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré noted that
Brazil became a Member State of ITU in 1877. "Brazil and ITU have enjoyed a
long and fruitful partnership, based on shared values of multilateralism and
respect," Dr Touré said. "In 1906, following the invention of radio, Brazil
was one of 27 countries which signed the first Radiotelegraph Convention.
We share a long and distinguished history of excellent cooperation, and we
look forward to continuing this tradition of mutual support and respect."

Along with the World Telecommunication and Information Society Award, Dr
Touré gifted President Lula with a copy of the instrument of ratification to
the International Telecommunication Convention signed in Atlantic City
on 15 August 1949.

Citing Brazil’s remarkable progress in ICT development, Dr Touré said that
it is at the forefront of the wireless revolution: "Brazil has 155 million
cellular phones of which 5 million are 3G terminals already in operation,
giving it a mobile teledensity of almost 80 per cent. At the beginning of
2009, over a third of the Brazilian population was online, and Brazil had
over ten million fixed broadband subscribers and close to three million
mobile broadband subscriptions."

Dr Touré added that Brazil is one of the world’s great satellite powers and
has operated both geostationary and non-geostationary satellite networks
since the early 1970’s. "Given the large dimension of your country, space
systems play a vital role in helping connect remote populations as well as
in remote sensing, monitoring climate change and resource exploration," Dr
Touré said.

*

For more information, please contact:
*  *

Sanjay Acharya
*

Chief, Media Relations and Public Information

ITU

Tel: +41 22 730 5046

Mobile: +41 79 249 4861

E-mail: sanjay.acharyaitu.int


*About ITU <http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/aboutitu.html>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/685bdf11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Discurso PR UIT final.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 22528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/685bdf11/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From baptista at publicroot.org  Tue Jun 16 12:29:37 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:29:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] 300 million people have spoken with one voice "WE
 DON'T NEED ICANN"
Message-ID: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>

When I see ICANN supporters introduce the misguided argument on the "REAL"
root I know were making progress.

So - who here can see the Chinese National TLD system?  Who can surf to
Peking University at its official web site address used extensively in china

http://北京大学.中国/ <http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/>

The above URL works for me.  Is there any other person here on the
governance or atlarge lists who can surf to that working URL?

I very proud of the Chines government.  They took charge of their internet.
They made it their business to understand the technology.  While other
governments helped ICANN build a bureaucracy - the Chinese gave them the
finger.  Thats three hundred million fingers people.

The TLD system in China was established as far back as 2003 with the
assistance of i-dns - which also runs a root seen in most of Asia and
developed a good portion of the tecnology used for IDN.  ICANN had nothing
to do with it.

ICANN is a fools paradise.  No one is happy with ICANN.  I recommend
governments don't end up dependent on ICANN.  If you want secure
infrastructure - NATIONALIZE YOUR ROOT. Create your own TLD infrastructure
that owes no allegiance to ICANN or the U.S. government.

That was my advice to the DOC.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition/060.pdf

If its good for China and America - it's good for you countries people too.

regards
joe baptista



-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/25f7949e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jun 16 12:57:21 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:57:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] 300 million people have spoken with one voice "WE
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



________________________________
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
So - who here can see the Chinese National TLD system?  Who can surf to Peking University at its official web site address used extensively in china

http://北京大学.中国/<http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/>

The above URL works for me.

It doesn't work for me.

NATIONALIZE YOUR ROOT.

One of the virtues of the Internet was that it broke communication out of the boxes national governments created for it. One of the reasons we should favor de-nationalization of ICANN is to keep it out of that box.

Create your own TLD infrastructure that owes no allegiance to ICANN or the U.S. government.

And fragment the world. Great.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090616/72219330/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  Tue Jun 16 14:14:00 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:44:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] 300 million people have spoken with one voice "WE
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906161114v3e6cd509i68af392fd246758f@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,


2009/6/16 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Baptista
> So - who here can see the Chinese National TLD system?  Who can surf to
> Peking University at its official web site address used extensively in china
>
> http://北京大学.中国/ <http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/>
>
> The above URL works for me.
>
> It doesn't work for me.
>
> NATIONALIZE YOUR ROOT.
>
> One of the virtues of the Internet was that it broke communication out of
> the boxes national governments created for it. One of the reasons we should
> favor de-nationalization of ICANN is to keep it out of that box.
>
> Create your own TLD infrastructure that owes no allegiance to ICANN or the
> U.S. government.
>
> And fragment the world. Great.
>
>
We should thank Joe Baptista for his JPA comments. What he advocates is
exactly the the threat of fragmentation that the US Government would already
be considering in its decision to extend the JPA or not. Whether the US
Government takes into account the postive comments or not, it would notice
bizarre inputs and be alarmed at the threat of fragmentation, which is
increasingly becoming real. The solution lies in internationalizing ICANN
without any further delay, and pave way for a stronger ICANN with a balanced
governance structure that would appeal to all the nations of the world
alike.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090616/ccd03767/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jun 16 14:27:31 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:27:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] 300 million people have spoken with one voice
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.
 syr.edu>
References: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20090616193542.9545BA6C50@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Dear Milton,
What Joe describes in reference to the open roots is the normal 
behaviour of any network technology correctly supporting a presentation layer.

The conflict I have with Vint Cerf at the WG-IDNABIS (where he 
opposes the way a probable consensus reads the IESG/IAB approved 
charter) results from that the Internet actually supports a 
presentation layer that can be transparently implemented. There might 
be different ways to support a presentation layer. As far I am 
concerned I only document the way it can be supported by any user 
according to the existing RFCs and proven operations under ICANN 
management. I also initiated the "project .fra" which enables some 
Internet inhérent but non-yet-used features. It is a test according 
to the Internet standardization process and ICANN ICP-3.

Too many years fighting the misunderstood "alt.root" fake issue (that 
multiple roots can only colide) have delayed the understanding of the 
multilayer:multiledger DNS (ML-DNS) evolution that ICANN asked the 
IETF to work on six years ago. Fragmentation as you call it, is a 
feature not a bug. The bug is the fear that the existing technology 
could not support diversity. My evaluation is that the Internet 
technology is actually more resilient than the IAB architecture 
thought it is. But it has to be innovatively approached. This is not 
that easy because of the involved political or commercial interests 
(cd. RFC 3869).

jfc



At 18:57 16/06/2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82SUEX07MBX04adsy_"
>
>         From: publicroot.info at gmail.com 
> [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
>So - who here can see the Chinese National TLD system?  Who can surf 
>to Peking University at its official web site address used extensively in china
>
><http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/>http://$BKL5~Bg3X(B.$BCf9q(B/
>
>The above URL works for me.
>
>It doesn't work for me.
>
>NATIONALIZE YOUR ROOT.
>
>One of the virtues of the Internet was that it broke communication 
>out of the boxes national governments created for it. One of the 
>reasons we should favor de-nationalization of ICANN is to keep it 
>out of that box.
>
>Create your own TLD infrastructure that owes no allegiance to ICANN 
>or the U.S. government.
>
>And fragment the world. Great.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20090616/5fb9c9f8/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Tue Jun 16 15:39:38 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:39:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] 300 million people have spoken with one voice "WE
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260906161114v3e6cd509i68af392fd246758f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A82@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <fecfce260906161114v3e6cd509i68af392fd246758f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A37F4FA.9000108@peter-dambier.de>

Hello,

I have tried it. Works.

It would be too bad if it did not. I am one of the people making
the Cesidian Root.

The bifurcation of the internet has already happened and cannot be
repaired. There are so many nations running their own DNS if only
to have a means to censor unwanted information.

Each of these counties adds a power of two into the number of
fractions: 2 4 8 16 32

By maintaining our own root we do at least try to put as many of
those fractions together into a single one tree.

China probably has the biggest internet population of the world.
Not including chinese TLDs is like closing your eyes to avoid
a thunderstorm.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/alternative-dns-to-circumvent-censorship-wikileaks/

Kind regards
Peter


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 2009/6/16 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
> 
>      
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* publicroot.info <http://publicroot.info>@gmail.com
>         <http://gmail.com> [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com
>         <mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Baptista
>         So - who here can see the Chinese National TLD system?  Who can
>         surf to Peking University at its official web site address used
>         extensively in china
> 
>         http://????.??/ <http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/>
> 
>         The above URL works for me.  
>          
>         It doesn't work for me.
>          
>         NATIONALIZE YOUR ROOT.  
>          
>         One of the virtues of the Internet was that it broke
>         communication out of the boxes national governments created for
>         it. One of the reasons we should favor de-nationalization of
>         ICANN is to keep it out of that box.
>          
>         Create your own TLD infrastructure that owes no allegiance to
>         ICANN or the U.S. government. 
>          
>         And fragment the world. Great. 
> 
> 
> We should thank Joe Baptista for his JPA comments. What he advocates is
> exactly the the threat of fragmentation that the US Government would
> already be considering in its decision to extend the JPA or not. Whether
> the US Government takes into account the postive comments or not, it
> would notice bizarre inputs and be alarmed at the threat of
> fragmentation, which is increasingly becoming real. The solution lies in
> internationalizing ICANN without any further delay, and pave way for a
> stronger ICANN with a balanced governance structure that would appeal to
> all the nations of the world alike.
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>  
> 
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com  Tue Jun 16 20:37:52 2009
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:37:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] President Lula of Brazil receives ITU Award + 
In-Reply-To: <4A381469.9314EF85@ix.netcom.com>
References: <490d0ba60906160809u1154ceb3q6b8af7c56b9045b3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A381469.9314EF85@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <490d0ba60906161737l1e6180d0yd88c861605fb4832@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for the technical feedback.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to sell anything here, neither am I intented
on disseminating any bit of propaganda. It was just news.

Abraços,
Sérgio

2009/6/16 Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>

> Sergio and all,
>
>  Nice bit of propaganda here.  Anyone that has been around or
> involved with the ITU knows full well that the ITU doesn't promote
> the "Knowledge society" unless it puts $$ in the ITU's coffers.  Nice
> try, but no sale here.  I am sorry to read that President Lula has
> gotten
> suckered into the ITU's web.  I am sure that the Brazilian people will
> either set him straight soon enough, or elect someone more "Clued in"
> and self aware in a more appropriate and honest manner.
>
> Sergio Alves Junior wrote:
>
> >
> >
>  FYI
>
>  Abraços,
>
>  Sérgio
>
>  Press Release
>
>  International Telecommunication Union
>  For immediate release                              Telephone:+41 22 730
> 6039
>
>                                                       Telefax:+41 22 730
> 5933
>                                                        E-mail:pressinfo
>
> >
> >
> >
> >              President Lula of Brazil receives ITU Award
> >
> >  World Telecommunication and Information Society Award for protecting
> >                            children online
> >
> > Geneva, 15 June 2009 — President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva of Brazil
> > visited ITU today where he received the World Telecommunication and
> > Information Society Award.
> >
> > Accepting the award, President Lula said he was pleased to see
> > international recognition for the efforts of the Brazilian government
> > to promote digital inclusion and a safe and democratic virtual space,
> > especially for children and adolescents. "We are determined to fight
> > digital exclusion, which is today one of the major constraints in the
> > quest for development," President Lula said. "To reduce inequalities
> > we need to increase access to modern communication technologies to a
> > larger number of people. Access to technologies should go beyond the
> > communications infrastructure dimension. People should be able to use
> > these technologies in a critical and interactive way. This is
> > important to promote the involvement of all people in the knowledge
> > society."
> >
> > President Lula described measures by his government to promote digital
> > inclusion, such as connecting urban public schools to broadband
> > Internet, distributing portable computers to students and teachers in
> > elementary public schools and establishing telecentres where students
> > can learn, study and entertain themselves. He said Brazil has reduced
> > taxes on IT solutions and promoted open software to reduce cost and to
> > build an inclusive people-centred information society linked to
> > development.
> >
> > President Lula congratulated ITU Secretary-General Dr Hamadoun Touré
> > for launching the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. He noted that the World
> > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) had given ITU a mandate to
> > strengthen cybersecurity and said ITU is the right place to coordinate
> > this endeavour. He said, "The challenge of cybercrimes demonstrates
> > the importance of discussing and debating Internet governance. WSIS
> > concluded that Internet governance should be transparent and
> > democratic with the participation of governments and civil society.
> > ITU should be part of this effort."
> >
> > President Lula added, "In fighting paedophiles, ITU could define
> > standards that could be adopted by all countries. We need a
> > multilateral instrument that would stimulate effective international
> > cooperation."
> >
> > World Telecommunication and Information Society Day (WTISD) brings
> > attention to the potential of information and communication
> > technologies (ICT) in meeting the development and economic aspirations
> > of societies and on the importance of the Internet as a global
> > resource. The theme for 2009 is Protecting Children in Cyberspace.
> >
> > WTISD marks the establishment of ITU in 1865.
> >
> > Welcoming President Lula to ITU, Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré
> > noted that Brazil became a Member State of ITU in 1877. "Brazil and
> > ITU have enjoyed a long and fruitful partnership, based on shared
> > values of multilateralism and respect," Dr Touré said. "In 1906,
> > following the invention of radio, Brazil was one of 27 countries which
> > signed the first Radiotelegraph Convention.
> > We share a long and distinguished history of excellent cooperation,
> > and we look forward to continuing this tradition of mutual support and
> > respect."
> >
> > Along with the World Telecommunication and Information Society Award,
> > Dr Touré gifted President Lula with a copy of the instrument of
> > ratification to the International Telecommunication Convention signed
> > in Atlantic City
> > on 15 August 1949.
> >
> > Citing Brazil’s remarkable progress in ICT development, Dr Touré said
> > that it is at the forefront of the wireless revolution: "Brazil has
> > 155 million cellular phones of which 5 million are 3G terminals
> > already in operation, giving it a mobile teledensity of almost 80 per
> > cent. At the beginning of 2009, over a third of the Brazilian
> > population was online, and Brazil had over ten million fixed broadband
> > subscribers and close to three million mobile broadband
> > subscriptions."
> >
> > Dr Touré added that Brazil is one of the world’s great satellite
> > powers and has operated both geostationary and non-geostationary
> > satellite networks since the early 1970’s. "Given the large dimension
> > of your country, space systems play a vital role in helping connect
> > remote populations as well as in remote sensing, monitoring climate
> > change and resource exploration," Dr Touré said.
> >
> > For more information, please contact:
> >
>
>  Sanjay Acharya
>
>  Chief, Media Relations and Public
>  Information
>
>  ITU
>
>  Tel: +41 22 730 5046
>
>  Mobile: +41 79 249 4861
>
>  E-mail:
>   sanjay.acharya[Image]itu.int
> >
> > About ITU
> >
> >    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
> 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/20090616/b60c2d7d/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 Jun 16 22:52:51 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:51 -0700
Subject: [governance] What.the China experience can teach the astute
 watchers about the internet...
Message-ID: <20090616195251.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.72c5b3eda1.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

     It seems that discussion of China as it relates to the internet is
rather in fashion these days, yet nothing is really new. China did not
set up its own DNS to get at ICANN (Though it did serve to bring out the
obvious in terms of ICANN's gradual marginalization.), but rather to
help retain the power for the current leadership by limiting the amount
of dissent or contradicting stories its people could access and feed
questions and further dissent.
     I wrote the daily English newscast for Shanghai TV during the
Tian-an-Men massacre in 1989. Not only did we not cover the story at
all, but it was my job to explain to all the foreign press there, still
packing gear to leave from the just completed summit between Gorbachev
and Deng, why they could use our facilities to send out favorable news
of the summit, but could not also use our access to send out news of the
protests and massacre a few days later. Unlike the USSR, who sought
political reform before economic reform, the Chinese Communists wisely
went for economic reform first, took credit for the incredible upturn in
the economy and further cemented their power.
    In short, China's own DNS is to exert the power of information
control on its own people, not to make a point with regard to ICANN or
Google. No amount of money or pressure will get China to give up the
control of information to its people willingly. If Google want to work
thee, they MUST work to Chinese standards. Information control is
critical there. When I first shared my Christian faith with my
mother-in-law there in 1988, she had been led to believe Christianity
was an anti-government political party and had no concept of it as a
system of faith. She now attends church three hours a day, seven days a
week. With no countering information, though, she had only one answer to
give for that group and was easily steered away from the truth she never
heard about. More information, when made available, changed her life.
China is deathly afraid of people seeing too much from outside of their
carefully scripted "reality".
     All this said, however, the point that the internet world is
changing is still valid. It frankly does not matter WHY 300 million
people now see a different selection of Top-Level Domains on a system
completely unreliant on ICANN or the US DOC. The simple fact is that
they do, and many more will follow in many other parts of the world. It
does not HAVE TO cause collisions in the name-space, however. There is a
way to prevent it through cooperation, not control. ICANN will never
again "control" what is seen by hundreds of millions of internet users.
They will control less and less every year. Soon, without tremendous
streamlining and cutting of costly bureaucratic regulation and extensive
milking of their historical position granted by the DOC through the JPA,
ICANN will more quickly be recognized as just another option for getting
a TLD live in the "Inclusive Name-Space" in which all the other root
systems work for market share, or in the case of China, just take some.
Why should anyone suffer like Chris Ambler did with his costly bid for
.WEB some years ago when there will be so many other ways to get their
products and services reliably to hundreds of millions of customers?
     To reform ICANN sufficiently to complete with ANY kind of
competitive DNS providers would completely change the nature and
operation of ICANN. I personally believe that it can not be done and
that it will go the way of the dinosaur that could not adapt.
     I encourage those of you here to think outside the box and begin to
figure out how the internet can survive and flourish in the new
multi-DNS world. "Internationalizing" ICANN will not bring China back
into the fold and it will do little to change the minds of others now
considering their own DNS for whatever reasons. The old internet world
is never coming back, and that is all ICANN is prepared for. Even a
really nice tube TV will not sell very well in the age of flat screens!

Karl E. Peters
620 Sea Island Road, #123
St. Simons Island, GA 31522  USA

Tel.: (912) 638-1638

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he
cannot lose."  -Jim Elliot


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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 06:14:52 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:14:52 +0500
Subject: [governance] Workshop 197 - Network Neutrality - Exploring a
In-Reply-To: <C658FA65.3028%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6527B16.2D3E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C658FA65.3028%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906170314r4f57754dpa42d774f5357f0fb@mail.gmail.com>

Just to mention, I have a paper worked out on network neutrality
introduction that can act as an opening discussion on the subject and
act as the stimulator of the session.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> A brief update here – we have preliminary agreement with Diplo Foundation
> and also Technology Policy Institute to combine the three suggested
> workshops on this topic and aim for a three hour session.  So we will
> proceed along those lines for now.
>
>
>
>
> On 8/06/09 8:23 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Again we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
> working group to run this workshop.
>
> Details of our previous submission are below. Ive suggested in a separate
> message we merge with Diplo workshop on the same subject. Ginger will
> approach them
>
> We  have some suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this below. Can
> we have a few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or
> offlist, whichever you prefer
>
> Current proposal is below.
>
>
> Title: Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
>
> Concise Description:
> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN
> principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the
> Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected
> by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on
> NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While
> proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to
> assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN,
> especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN
> debates.
>
> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
> workshop fall under?
> Openness
>
> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
> If so, please provide the link to the report:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty
>
> Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
> If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
> should organize it?
> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in
> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil
> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange
> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers
> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific
> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles
> that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out
> additional developing country commentators in particular.
>
> The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:Internet Governance Caucus
>
> Contact Person: Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Wed Jun 17 09:09:08 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] DoC/ICANN induced Localization Balkanization
In-Reply-To: 874c02a20906160929i7971d968w42ee86bd845c389f@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1245242272.17443.747@lists.cpsr.org>


>Soon, without tremendous
streamlining and cutting of costly bureaucratic regulation and extensive
milking of their historical position granted by the DOC through the JPA,
ICANN will more quickly be recognized as just another option for getting
a TLD live in the "Inclusive Name-Space" in which all the other root
systems work for market share, ...

Is the issue really that the DoC/Icann JPA 'policy' that forces a kind of
Localization?
That China's dns-version creates a Balkanization in the Icann scheama (and
perhapes Yours)? 

Does this 'policy' create a censorship upon the Technolgy and Wider
DNS-Spectrum (e.g.: the "Inclusive Name-Space"}? or not.

Tell me...?
---
Some time ago: Ref.
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-07/msg00105.html

Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?
From: Tony Finch 
Date: Mon Jul 04 08:47:30 2005 

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

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>
> They are battling it out in the marketplace and one of the IDN solutions
> will evolve to the point where the market considers it clearly superior.
> This may be the IETF-blessed solution and it may not. One only has to
> browse through the RFC archives to see that RFC status is no guarantee
> that something will be widely adopted.
>
> Personally, I think that the Internet is too young and we have too
> little experience with multilingual naming to engineer an
> Internationalised Domain Naming solution that solves the problem once
> and for all. This means that we should be ready for more than one
> iteration to get to the solution.

We should be careful to distinguish between i18n and localization. These
private alternative DNS roots are specific to a particular set of users,
so they implement DNS l10n which is not appropriate for a system that is
supposed to be international. Slogan: Localization is Balkanization.

Tony.
--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Jun 17 10:51:40 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:51:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] DoC/ICANN induced Localization Balkanization
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1245242272.17443.747@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1245242272.17443.747@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906170751l194486c4nf536d86f7b1ce13f@mail.gmail.com>

Good points to bring up Yehuda.  Yes we must start asking ourselves
questions.  The guide to the answers are contained in RFC 2826.  Thats an
informational publication which provides a pretty good guide for managing
the name space.

Root should broadcast a standard set of TLDs - however one arrives at it.

Now I do think the term Balkanization a bit harsh.  Because the
balkanization that has occurred to day is balkanization by necessity.  The
Chinese have considered IANA a joke since long before ICANN came into
existence.  The Chinese have realized that the DNS is the most important and
integral part of national infrastructure.

They were the first to recognize the political consequences of having their
own TLD system.  If the U.S. government goes a little kooky and deletes .cn
from the IANA legacy root infrastructure they will be up a creak without a
paddle,  so to speak.  Obama even addressed the issue in his cybersecurity
speech.

Thats why they created national infrastructure and have by default ensured
the commercial expansion of their own national domain space - completely
independent of the U.S. government.  No strings attached. They have full
backups on .cn and all their IDN TLDs.  And anycast the root announcements.

But this is necessity.  No government on earth should trust either the U.S.
government or the clowns at ICANN with their national infrastructure.  A
nation state that does not run their own domain name infrastructure is a
captive of the U.S.

Balkanization by necessity - control of national infrastructure due to the
necessity to ensure stability - commerce, communications, and the economy.
An outage of which would cause vast damage to commerce, communications and
the economy of any nation.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>wrote:

>
> >Soon, without tremendous
> streamlining and cutting of costly bureaucratic regulation and extensive
> milking of their historical position granted by the DOC through the JPA,
> ICANN will more quickly be recognized as just another option for getting
> a TLD live


Exactly.  ICANN is just another root like any other.  But ICANN can show
leadership and be inclusive.  Unfortunately I'm a realist and know ICANN is
incapable of leadership.

I've personally been involved with two inclusive name space systems one on
continental Europe and another in Turkey.  Government supported roots I
might add.

The experiment was moving very rapidly.  I could see a day when people could
create a TLD for six bucks.  The TLD or root space zone files are the same
as the .COM zone.  What is the size of that file these days - approx? 70
million names? 100 ?

In any case the same rules apply to both zones.  It is completely possible
to have millions of TLDs activated overnight.  There are technical purists
who will insist that it flattens the name space.  I consider that argument
bonkers.  The same technical principles that apply to .COM also apply to
root.

in the "Inclusive Name-Space" in which all the other root
> systems work for market share, ...


Well the inclusive name space is a set of principles designed to stop the
balkanization or root fragmentation caused by ICANN's inflexible disposition
toward listing valid TLDs - like the Chinese TLDs.  The Chinese did try to
get their TLDs listed at ICANN.  But the usual  bureaucracy at ICANN got in
the way of any progress and the Chinese gave ICANN the finger and moved on.

The whole ICANN IDN escapades and fiasco on internationalized domain names
is a running joke.  They work already - lets get on with listing them.
Almost every non ascii country is ready to go.

Meanwhile back in ICANN land where fairy tails abound a plenty they are
pretending to conduct a so called experimental introduction of iTLDs into
the IANA root.  They work already - let's go.

It's a joke.  The balkanization of iTLD DNS has been going on for a long
time now.  And the evidence of that is in every log file on every root
server world wide.  I wrote about this back in 2003 - which see URL.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/

basically - most of you don't see the Internet.  You see the IANA version.
So when a URL from a non IANA root system like the Peking University example
http://北京大学.中国/ <http://xn--1lq90ic7fzpc.xn--fiqs8s/> any time someone
clicks on the URL they end up generating an error at the root servers.

Now imagine 300 million people email friends sharing data and URLs - those
URLs leak outside of china and you end up with an astronomical error rate at
the ICANN roots.  Balkanization is creating major stress on the IANA root.

This is proof ICANN has failed form a technical perspective.  They promised
the U.S. government that they would not cause harm to the internet.  The
error rate at the root clearly show they have failed in that promise.


>
> Is the issue really that the DoC/Icann JPA 'policy' that forces a kind of
> Localization?


No.  It's the lack of co-operation from ICANN and the snail progress to get
any thing done as the wheels of bureaucracy go round and round.  ICANN has
mystified the DNS and now it must continue to play the role of high priest
of DNS.  In civil service land ICANN is known as a crown of thorns.

A lot of civil servants are involved too.  Some like the ICANN bureaucracy -
it keeps them busy and employed.  Others who like to get the job done simply
get frustrated by ICANN and usually give up.

ICANN is a perfect bureaucracy - lot's of activity - no results - big
budget.

Competitively speaking as a root it sucks.


>
> That China's dns-version creates a Balkanization in the Icann scheama (and
> perhapes Yours)?


Not mine.  When I click on the Chinese character URL above for Peking
University I can see China.  There is no error.  It is ICANN that is
balkanized from the network by choice.  People here can choose to simply
change their ns provider to one that sees china.  I know the Cesidian and
Pirate party see China.  So I don't consider myself balkanized.  I actually
feel rather liberated that I can see China and regret other don't.  Native
language URL's I think add a certain warmth and cultural value to the
surfing experience.


>
>
> Does this 'policy' create a censorship upon the Technolgy and Wider
> DNS-Spectrum (e.g.: the "Inclusive Name-Space"}? or not.


I don't think censorship is the issue here.  I think what you have is a lack
of common sense and stubbornness at ICANN in recognizing the obvious - there
is no root monopoly - there is just the peoples will and a name space
expanding around them they no longer control. There are legal issues.
Lot's.

I certainly don't feel censored as I can surf to Peaking University in
Chinese.  But certainly I can understand you feeling a bit censored.   So
yes - I guess it would be censorship.  But thats only because of the
complete lack of common sense at ICANN.

regards
joe baptista

-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090617/85d175f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 13:11:19 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>

I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.

Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing responsible
youth hood.

Aaron


============================================================


"Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a grand
coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party - seems
united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote on
the erection of an internet censorship architecture.

The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the
discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in
order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship
architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".




-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090617/426f48fe/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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 13:35:19 2009
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:35:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <304bc040906171035ic423420u8ff84b46cda2a6d1@mail.gmail.com>

Aaron, I am not so sure if the new Internet filter in Germany is really a
positive thing. In the end it will cover but not remove the problem. And
besides that, examples from other countries show that Internet filter are
not very successful to fight child abuse. But it is a very popular and
emotionally driven topic and who will probably profit from it is the
initiating Minister of Family, Ursula von der Leyen, and her party CDU
during the upcoming national elections in September 2009.

If you are interested in the German case check out the article on page 127
of this magazine:

http://www.net-security.org/dl/insecure/INSECURE-Mag-21.pdf


Best, Daniel




2009/6/17 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>

>
> I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
>
> Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing responsible
> youth hood.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> ============================================================
>
>
> "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a
> grand
> coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party -
> seems
> united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote
> on
> the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
>
> The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the
> discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in
> order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship
> architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
> pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
> administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
> obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090617/68c8d938/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Wed Jun 17 14:47:37 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:47:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>

Aaron it looks great,

because it keeps the business running.
The things they "censor" earn a lot of money and are not allowed
to get censored. So we build a fake filter for grandma and keep
the business rolling.

The real problem:

The fake filter keeps grandma from seeing what she does not want
to see and keeps her from calling the police.

Internet researchers have shown it is easy to close those sites.
An email or a phone call can do - but that would destroy business.
After all the CDU is business oriented.

We are very much afraid of what the CDU is doing right now.
The CDU used to be the "Zentrum" or the center party and they
helped install what Hitler later on used to censor.

The "censoring" they are going to install can censor anything.
They guy who is feeding the filter is not controlled by anybody
and leaks found of other filters show that 90% of the things
filtered is just filtered for fun.

Closing your eyes does not help you avoiding a thunderstorm.

There have been police raids with thousands of homes searched
here in germany and nobody was found guilty. Servers from the
pirates party have been taken and nothing has been found.

Sites were down and people are still regarded as guilty by
their neigbars. Looks very much like NAZI germany.

Kind regards
Peter (german pirates party)

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
> 
> I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
> 
> Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing
> responsible youth hood.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> 
> ==============================
> ==============================
> 
> 
> "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a grand
> coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party - seems
> united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote on
> the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
> 
> The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the
> discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in
> order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship
> architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
> pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
> administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
> obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
> 
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
> 

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 16:07:53 2009
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:07:53 -0300
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>

Peter, I cannot say that I am a supporter of the CDU but I have to point out
that they are definitely not supporting the business of child abuse online
or offline. This seems to be a little too much of a conspiracy thinking. And
putting Hitler into this context is also far from reality. Sorry, but I have
to state this because this kind of mixing up things gives a totally wrong
picture of Germany for people living in other countries and probably trying
to understand the discussion about the Internet filter going on in Germany.

There is definitely a problem with the lack of democratic control of the
filter list and I also agree that we are having a problem with police
activities against parts of civil society or social movements (or however
they prefer to be called). And behind that there are often decisions made by
the CDU. But that does not make them a totalitarian party.


Best, Daniel






2009/6/17 Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>

> Aaron it looks great,
>
> because it keeps the business running.
> The things they "censor" earn a lot of money and are not allowed
> to get censored. So we build a fake filter for grandma and keep
> the business rolling.
>
> The real problem:
>
> The fake filter keeps grandma from seeing what she does not want
> to see and keeps her from calling the police.
>
> Internet researchers have shown it is easy to close those sites.
> An email or a phone call can do - but that would destroy business.
> After all the CDU is business oriented.
>
> We are very much afraid of what the CDU is doing right now.
> The CDU used to be the "Zentrum" or the center party and they
> helped install what Hitler later on used to censor.
>
> The "censoring" they are going to install can censor anything.
> They guy who is feeding the filter is not controlled by anybody
> and leaks found of other filters show that 90% of the things
> filtered is just filtered for fun.
>
> Closing your eyes does not help you avoiding a thunderstorm.
>
> There have been police raids with thousands of homes searched
> here in germany and nobody was found guilty. Servers from the
> pirates party have been taken and nothing has been found.
>
> Sites were down and people are still regarded as guilty by
> their neigbars. Looks very much like NAZI germany.
>
> Kind regards
> Peter (german pirates party)
>
> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
> >
> > I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
> >
> > Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing
> > responsible youth hood.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > ==============================
> >
> >
> > "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a
> grand
> > coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party -
> seems
> > united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote
> on
> > the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
> >
> > The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led
> the
> > discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites
> in
> > order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a
> censorship
> > architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
> > pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
> > administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
> > obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> > Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> > Special Assistant The President
> > ASAFE
> > P.O.Box 5213
> > Douala-Cameroon
> >
> > Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> > Fax. 237 3342 29 70
> >
>
> --
> Peter and Karin Dambier
> Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> Rimbacher Strasse 16
> D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
> http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090617/ca26248a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 17:22:00 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:22:00 +0700
Subject: [governance] How the World was made to forget the Human
 Development Agenda in Internet Governance - Part 1
Message-ID: <701af9f70906171422s19f30d60p1f5a0f708d1db57c@mail.gmail.com>

How the World was made to forget the Human Development Agenda in
Internet Governance - Part 1

Part 1 - Independent analysis of the global Internet Governance regime by:
Fouad Bajwa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Bajwa
Member - Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
Member - UN-IGF (MAG) Multistakeholder Advisory Group
Member - Member ICANN's Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC).

1.1. Setting the Stage of Multilaterism in a World of Technology:
Global events and forums that have cultivated the way we perceive
Information and Communication Technologies ICTs. Major events carried
out by multilateral agencies in the past including the World Summit on
the Information Society and the ongoing Internet Governance Forums
have been creating spaces for open dialogues that weren't earlier
possible between various Multistakeholders in the past. The
multilateral system wasn't open to the intervening of Civil Society
directly on policy related issues since the governments collectively
discussed and took decisions through mutually drafted consensus based
resolutions that were approved at the United Nations General Assembly
in New York every year.

1.2 Multistakeholderism and the new laws of participation:
The emergence of inclusion of multistakeholderism within the
Multilateral System has given birth to a new form of participation
that was only possible earlier through observation only.
Multistakeholderism, a phenomenon that brings other entities including
private sectors and civil society into the global dialogue process
with the government members of the Multilateral System is relatively
very new and Civil Society itself is evolving its approach to respond
to this new profound role in the global policy making arena where it
can be heard in detail. Since this global policy dialogue intervention
front is very new, Civil Society is still in the process of acquiring
the knowledge and experience required to effectively play its role and
represent the voice and interest it brings to the platform of
Multistakeholderism. It really is a new awakening.

1.3. Influential Moderation and Deception:
The lack of knowledge and experience plays a major benefit to the
multilateralists that today also comprise of the private sector and in
some countries, owners of the private sector as their organizations
also govern the national governments due to their influence. Within
the Multistakeholder process, the corporations that have outgrown from
their domestic boundaries to global fronts have a more assertive power
and influence over the lobbying process that is unified in the
diplomatic process of Multilateralism. Despite the fact, that is how
the world has been for over a century now that corporations tend to
fill their pockets with revenues beyond the government's budgets in
many countries across the world.

1.4. Meeting the Opposition Eye-to-Eye:
When the Multistakeholder process evolved into the state of its
current existence, where, it brought face-to-face the Government, the
Private Sector and Civil Society, the game of diplomacy and
Multilaterism reached new heights. The opposition was at the table
with the influencers where the Governments could enjoy the dialogue
because the mediators and facilitators would emerge from the Private
Sector. Where Civil Society felt it was making an effective
intervention, the Private Sector would get the opportunity to outplay
them because its hard for the Civil Society to find their comments in
interventions to be recorded and included into the Multilateral
decision making process on an as it is basis.

1.5. The Misconception - Influence changes face:
Civil Society believes its sitting at the table, whereas it somehow
forgets, the Private Sector stakeholders cannot let it reduce their
interests and opportunities. They cannot let them create more
watchdogs on them in both their regional and global markets,
definitely, they cannot let Civil Society disrupt their business as
usual. So the prime power play has made an innovative shift in the
Multilateralism arena globally. The influencers have also become
mediators whereas the two parties that really interface on issues that
affect Human Rights, Human Development, Human Peace and Security,
Humany Socio-Economic Development etc., sit facing each other but
cannot truly reach a decision, why, the diplomatic role has also been
transferred to the Private Sector. The Private Sector is now in a
better position to lobby because they can as their position within the
policy process has been automatically improved by the participation of
Civil Society.

1.6. Yet to learn the new tricks of the trade:
Instead of only interfacing the outbursts of Civil Society in various
settings, often offending and offensive ones, the Private Sector has
been successful in pulling the Civil Society actors into the global
Diplomatic Setting where there are codes of conduct and rules of
engagement practised for decades, the norms of which cannot be simply
altered by the participation of a new group of Independent Diplomats
that represent no governance system but represent the voice of those
that are governed by all the systems of this world. The Civil Society
has come into a role of new learning and understanding. Civil Society
Diplomacy is a new concept and is very fresh to determine its final
destination. It is facing manipulation, anti-lobbying, disorientation
and disconnection in the Multilaterist process because it is trying to
understand the new grounds it has come to stand on and make itself
heard, understood and included in what is called the system of global
policy making.

End of Part 1 - "Welcome to the world of Internet and Technology
Multistakeholderism in a world of Internet facilitated Multilaterism."

-- 

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  Wed Jun 17 17:56:44 2009
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:56:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>

I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
interests.

I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
level.

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 19:47:14 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:47:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>
	 <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906171647s627e9267h7609fae6b1e8bf52@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Daniel
Oppermann<dan.oppermann at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter, I cannot say that I am a supporter of the CDU but I have to point out
> that they are definitely not supporting the business of child abuse online
> or offline. This seems to be a little too much of a conspiracy thinking. And
> putting Hitler into this context is also far from reality.

It's also a Godwin in only 4 posts!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From peter at peter-dambier.de  Wed Jun 17 19:53:37 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:53:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de> <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A398201.7090809@peter-dambier.de>

Ok Daniel,

the CDU is not the NAZIs nor was the "Zentrum", but it were the fools
from the "Zentrum" who accidently introduced the laws that later
were used by Hitler and his men.

I don't think Scheuble and Von der Lyen do know what they are doing
but the lobbyists who tell them what to do, do. They are paid by
that very industry.

E.g. have a look at

 http://www.jugendschutzprogramm.de/

and have a look at <Partner>. You'll find the german porn industry who
happens to be an important part of the german copyright industry.
Interestingly enough their filter used to block the pirates party right
at the day of the EU elections. I guess, if we had not made such a noise
they would still block us today.

Again the german porn industry is not the german child abuse industry
but their lobbyists do know what they are doing and how to sponsor the
right people. By introducing censoring we are silencing those people
who oppose child abuse and we are introducing a save haven for the
abusing industry who can now sell a means to overcome the filters.
They could not sell this extra if we had closed their servers in the
first place.

There have been police raids in germany because of supposed child
abuse. Nothing has been found.

There have been police raids in germany at members of the pirates party
and machines including servers have been taken away. I never heard of
the outcome - maybe because the people involved were told by their
lawyers not to talk until the judge has stated his decision.


Kind regards
Peter


Daniel Oppermann wrote:
> Peter, I cannot say that I am a supporter of the CDU but I have to point
> out that they are definitely not supporting the business of child abuse
> online or offline. This seems to be a little too much of a conspiracy
> thinking. And putting Hitler into this context is also far from reality.
> Sorry, but I have to state this because this kind of mixing up things
> gives a totally wrong picture of Germany for people living in other
> countries and probably trying to understand the discussion about the
> Internet filter going on in Germany.
> 
> There is definitely a problem with the lack of democratic control of the
> filter list and I also agree that we are having a problem with police
> activities against parts of civil society or social movements (or
> however they prefer to be called). And behind that there are often
> decisions made by the CDU. But that does not make them a totalitarian
> party.
> 
> 
> Best, Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/6/17 Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
> <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>>
> 
>     Aaron it looks great,
> 
>     because it keeps the business running.
>     The things they "censor" earn a lot of money and are not allowed
>     to get censored. So we build a fake filter for grandma and keep
>     the business rolling.
> 
>     The real problem:
> 
>     The fake filter keeps grandma from seeing what she does not want
>     to see and keeps her from calling the police.
> 
>     Internet researchers have shown it is easy to close those sites.
>     An email or a phone call can do - but that would destroy business.
>     After all the CDU is business oriented.
> 
>     We are very much afraid of what the CDU is doing right now.
>     The CDU used to be the "Zentrum" or the center party and they
>     helped install what Hitler later on used to censor.
> 
>     The "censoring" they are going to install can censor anything.
>     They guy who is feeding the filter is not controlled by anybody
>     and leaks found of other filters show that 90% of the things
>     filtered is just filtered for fun.
> 
>     Closing your eyes does not help you avoiding a thunderstorm.
> 
>     There have been police raids with thousands of homes searched
>     here in germany and nobody was found guilty. Servers from the
>     pirates party have been taken and nothing has been found.
> 
>     Sites were down and people are still regarded as guilty by
>     their neigbars. Looks very much like NAZI germany.
> 
>     Kind regards
>     Peter (german pirates party)
> 
>     Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
>     >
>     > I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
>     >
>     > Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing
>     > responsible youth hood.
>     >
>     > Aaron
>     >
>     >
>     > ==============================
>     > ==============================
>     >
>     >
>     > "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government
>     - a grand
>     > coalition between the German social democrats and conservative
>     party - seems
>     > united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is
>     to vote on
>     > the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
>     >
>     > The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off
>     and led the
>     > discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet
>     sites in
>     > order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a
>     censorship
>     > architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
>     > pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
>     > administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
>     > obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the
>     government".
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
>     > Journalist-OutCome Mapper
>     > Special Assistant The President
>     > ASAFE
>     > P.O.Box 5213
>     > Douala-Cameroon
>     >
>     > Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
>     > Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Peter and Karin Dambier
>     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>     Rimbacher Strasse 16
>     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
>     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
>     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Wed Jun 17 20:14:10 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:14:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>

Filters and children equals Bullshit.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>wrote:

> I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
> rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
> filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
> interests.


Filters don't protect children from abuse.  Thats a nonsense argument.  If
you want to protect children - legislate them off the Internet.

I personally think no child should have access to the Internet until they
are 18 and older.  If they have to be 18 or older to see a dirty movie in a
theater then the same should apply to the Internet - the biggest access
point on the planet for fine filth and quality porn.

This whole child porn thing is eventually going to blow up in our faces.
People who make pornos about children are on the decline.  However children
making child porn is well on the rise.  And the demand by children for child
porn is on the rise due to the ease of distribution the Internet makes
available to them.



> I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
> presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
> co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
> level.



Your absolutely right.  I say save the children once and for all.  No need
for filters - which have little to do with protecting children and
everything to do with protecting government interests.  Just pass a few laws
to keep the little whipper snappers off the net and you solve the problem
once an for all time.

regards
joe baptista

-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090617/91944774/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  Wed Jun 17 20:29:01 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>  <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com> <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Unfortunately a few fools don't really see the problem here.

Child porn is a serious problem and restricting access to it is not about protecting children directly, it's about stopping paedophiles from accessing child porn. Children may benefit by stopping abuse.

To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against speeding. It certainly changes behaviour though.

However given the childish arguments put forward by people like Dambier, I wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.

The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to block content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then it's a problem.

Of course, other uninformed and nonsenical arguments such as put forward by Baptista that "If you want to protect children - legislate them off the Internet" are pathetic.

I'd love to know where Baptista's evidence is that the amount of child porn being produced is on the decline. How would you know?

Oh well, I guess expecting an understanding of the issues involved is just too much to be expected by those who have previously contributed to the debate.

David



________________________________
From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 June, 2009 10:14:10 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany

Filters and children equals Bullshit.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com> wrote:

I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
>>rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
>>filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
>>interests.

Filters don't protect children from abuse.  Thats a nonsense argument.  If you want to protect children - legislate them off the Internet.

I personally think no child should have access to the Internet until they are 18 and older.  If they have to be 18 or older to see a dirty movie in a theater then the same should apply to the Internet - the biggest access point on the planet for fine filth and quality porn.

This whole child porn thing is eventually going to blow up in our faces.  People who make pornos about children are on the decline.  However children making child porn is well on the rise.  And the demand by children for child porn is on the rise due to the ease of distribution the Internet makes available to them.




>>I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
>>presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
>>co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
>>level.


Your absolutely right.  I say save the children once and for all.  No need for filters - which have little to do with protecting children and everything to do with protecting government interests.  Just pass a few laws to keep the little whipper snappers off the net and you solve the problem once an for all time.

regards
joe baptista

-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com



      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090617/e858573b/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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 20:42:29 2009
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:42:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1245285749.5886.62.camel@daniel-laptop>

Unfortunately filters do not protect children from abuse. And this is
one of the main arguments of the filter's critics. They are mostly
hiding some websites but not doing anything about the business behind
it. Besides that a big part (maybe the biggest part) of child porn
trading does not happen via websites. Which means the filter has no
effect at all about that.

I understand the interest of politicians and some NGOs (like Save the
Children or others) to do anything to protect children (and getting
votes and/or donations). But using Internet filter is not the right way.

Over 134.000 signatures in a few weeks is the highest amount an
e-petition has ever gained in Germany (the second biggest has about
52.000 and deals with social security reforms). One important reason why
this topic got so big in Germany is the fact that there is quite a high
sensibility in some parts of the German population regarding privacy and
restrictions of access to information and governmental control in
certain areas. Besides the historic experiences from the time of
dictatorship in the 1930s to 1940s this has also partly to do with the
students' movements in the 1960, the experiences of governmental
controls in the 1970s (era of terrorism), the national discussion about
a population census in the 1980s, the fall of the East German regime in
1989, and the 1990s discussion about the surveillance activities of the
East German secret service (this discussion lasts until today).

Concluding this I want to say that arguing about the possibilities that
a censorship regime could be installed by this filter can successfully
mobilize a bigger group of people. And as all German online media have
reported quite critically about the filter in the last weeks, signing
the e-petition was just a click away. 


Best, Daniel




Am Mittwoch, den 17.06.2009, 14:56 -0700 schrieb Sylvia Caras:
> I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
> rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
> filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
> interests.
> 
> I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
> presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
> co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
> level.
> 
> 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

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

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


From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 20:52:51 2009
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:52:51 +0800
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <1245285749.5886.62.camel@daniel-laptop>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1245285749.5886.62.camel@daniel-laptop>
Message-ID: <58762b1a0906171752p5a9fddfes1fab5d95f548f69f@mail.gmail.com>

This op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal Asia is relevant to this
discussion and may be of interest:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124525992051023961.html

Best,
Rebecca

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Oppermann
<dan.oppermann at gmail.com>wrote:

> Unfortunately filters do not protect children from abuse. And this is
> one of the main arguments of the filter's critics. They are mostly
> hiding some websites but not doing anything about the business behind
> it. Besides that a big part (maybe the biggest part) of child porn
> trading does not happen via websites. Which means the filter has no
> effect at all about that.
>
> I understand the interest of politicians and some NGOs (like Save the
> Children or others) to do anything to protect children (and getting
> votes and/or donations). But using Internet filter is not the right way.
>
> Over 134.000 signatures in a few weeks is the highest amount an
> e-petition has ever gained in Germany (the second biggest has about
> 52.000 and deals with social security reforms). One important reason why
> this topic got so big in Germany is the fact that there is quite a high
> sensibility in some parts of the German population regarding privacy and
> restrictions of access to information and governmental control in
> certain areas. Besides the historic experiences from the time of
> dictatorship in the 1930s to 1940s this has also partly to do with the
> students' movements in the 1960, the experiences of governmental
> controls in the 1970s (era of terrorism), the national discussion about
> a population census in the 1980s, the fall of the East German regime in
> 1989, and the 1990s discussion about the surveillance activities of the
> East German secret service (this discussion lasts until today).
>
> Concluding this I want to say that arguing about the possibilities that
> a censorship regime could be installed by this filter can successfully
> mobilize a bigger group of people. And as all German online media have
> reported quite critically about the filter in the last weeks, signing
> the e-petition was just a click away.
>
>
> Best, Daniel
>
>
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.06.2009, 14:56 -0700 schrieb Sylvia Caras:
> > I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
> > rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
> > filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
> > interests.
> >
> > I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
> > presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
> > co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
> > level.
> >
> > 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



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

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/20090618/04e92d21/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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 21:59:27 2009
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:59:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <4A398201.7090809@peter-dambier.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>
	 <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A398201.7090809@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <1245290367.5886.104.camel@daniel-laptop>

Peter, I think there is no need to sell any "extra" (you mean an app to
overcome the filter, right?). You definitely find that information for
free on the net. 

Another question:
What do you mean with silencing people opposing child porn? In the end
the list will be controlled by the BKA. Do you think they will put
anyone opposing child porn on the list, maybe because some lobbyist
convinced them to do so?

I checked the website http://www.jugendschutzprogramm.de/ and also all
of its partners. It is definitely a product of the porn industry. So do
you mean that there is any danger that child porn critics or in general
filter critics could end up in this filter?


Daniel




Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 01:53 +0200 schrieb Peter Dambier:

> 
>  By introducing censoring we are silencing those people
> who oppose child abuse and we are introducing a save haven for the
> abusing industry who can now sell a means to overcome the filters.
> They could not sell this extra if we had closed their servers in the
> first place.
> 

> 

> 
> 
> Daniel Oppermann wrote:
> > Peter, I cannot say that I am a supporter of the CDU but I have to point
> > out that they are definitely not supporting the business of child abuse
> > online or offline. This seems to be a little too much of a conspiracy
> > thinking. And putting Hitler into this context is also far from reality.
> > Sorry, but I have to state this because this kind of mixing up things
> > gives a totally wrong picture of Germany for people living in other
> > countries and probably trying to understand the discussion about the
> > Internet filter going on in Germany.
> > 
> > There is definitely a problem with the lack of democratic control of the
> > filter list and I also agree that we are having a problem with police
> > activities against parts of civil society or social movements (or
> > however they prefer to be called). And behind that there are often
> > decisions made by the CDU. But that does not make them a totalitarian
> > party.
> > 
> > 
> > Best, Daniel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 2009/6/17 Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
> > <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>>
> > 
> >     Aaron it looks great,
> > 
> >     because it keeps the business running.
> >     The things they "censor" earn a lot of money and are not allowed
> >     to get censored. So we build a fake filter for grandma and keep
> >     the business rolling.
> > 
> >     The real problem:
> > 
> >     The fake filter keeps grandma from seeing what she does not want
> >     to see and keeps her from calling the police.
> > 
> >     Internet researchers have shown it is easy to close those sites.
> >     An email or a phone call can do - but that would destroy business.
> >     After all the CDU is business oriented.
> > 
> >     We are very much afraid of what the CDU is doing right now.
> >     The CDU used to be the "Zentrum" or the center party and they
> >     helped install what Hitler later on used to censor.
> > 
> >     The "censoring" they are going to install can censor anything.
> >     They guy who is feeding the filter is not controlled by anybody
> >     and leaks found of other filters show that 90% of the things
> >     filtered is just filtered for fun.
> > 
> >     Closing your eyes does not help you avoiding a thunderstorm.
> > 
> >     There have been police raids with thousands of homes searched
> >     here in germany and nobody was found guilty. Servers from the
> >     pirates party have been taken and nothing has been found.
> > 
> >     Sites were down and people are still regarded as guilty by
> >     their neigbars. Looks very much like NAZI germany.
> > 
> >     Kind regards
> >     Peter (german pirates party)
> > 
> >     Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
> >     >
> >     > I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
> >     >
> >     > Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing
> >     > responsible youth hood.
> >     >
> >     > Aaron
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > ==============================
> >     > ==============================
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government
> >     - a grand
> >     > coalition between the German social democrats and conservative
> >     party - seems
> >     > united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is
> >     to vote on
> >     > the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
> >     >
> >     > The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off
> >     and led the
> >     > discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet
> >     sites in
> >     > order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a
> >     censorship
> >     > architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
> >     > pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
> >     > administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
> >     > obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the
> >     government".
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> >     > Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> >     > Special Assistant The President
> >     > ASAFE
> >     > P.O.Box 5213
> >     > Douala-Cameroon
> >     >
> >     > Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> >     > Fax. 237 3342 29 70
> >     >
> > 
> >     --
> >     Peter and Karin Dambier
> >     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> >     Rimbacher Strasse 16
> >     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> >     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> >     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
> >     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
> >     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> >     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> >     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> >     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     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 baptista at publicroot.org  Wed Jun 17 22:14:20 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:14:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906171914x1452c226k9adaee9572d6ddff@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM, David Goldstein <
goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Unfortunately a few fools don't really see the problem here.
>
> Child porn is a serious problem and restricting access to it is not about
> protecting children directly, it's about stopping paedophiles from accessing
> child porn. Children may benefit by stopping abuse.
>

Does not work.  If you want to protect children you legislate them off the
Internet.   There are a lot of predators looking for kids to play with.  If
those kids are off the network the abuse ends.

Predators would be forced to use old fashioned methods of find children.
Like coaching sports teams - etc.

Also stopping pedophiles from accessing child porn online DOES NOT protect
children.  It protects no one.  And the child porn continues to be
available.  It's impossible to get rid of it.

Now with children producing their own porn the availability just goes up.

The only thing this whole child porn crusade does do is waste my tax dollars
and accomplish absolutely nothing in the process.


> To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is
> nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against speeding.
> It certainly changes behaviour though.
>

Sure - pass all the laws you want - but don't expect them to work.  Child
porn is here to stay.  And again I remind you of that very difficult truth
that most child porn these days is produced by children.

Are you asleep Goldstein.  Most people are completely unaware of what is
happening these days.  And most of those people are parents.




>
> However given the childish arguments put forward by people like Dambier, I
> wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.
>

Dambier has a valid point.


>
>
> The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German
> government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to block
> content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then it's a problem.
>

Like I said - most people are asleep and you are no exception to that rule
making a statement like you have above.  All filter lists to date have been
shown to be useless - they don't as a rule block content - and in many cases
the content blocked are legitimate site - like the American Medical
Association - I think that one end up on the aussi list.



>
>
> Of course, other uninformed and nonsenical arguments such as put forward by
> Baptista that "If you want to protect children - legislate them off the
> Internet" are pathetic.
>

Common sense many time is presented as nonsensical argument.  However it is
a fact that if you want to guarantee your children are protected from
pornography and predators removing the Internet from their lives works very
well.  It's guaranteed results.



>
>
> I'd love to know where Baptista's evidence is that the amount of child porn
> being produced is on the decline. How would you know?
>

I've been a system administrator since the Internet was started.  I once
consulted and helped a major police agency in Canada investigate child porn
trafficking.  So you might say I have some expertise on the subject and have
kept in touch with those who investigate it over the years.

Now I don't think I said child porn is on the decline.  Like all commodities
it goes up in volumn yearly.  The rate of production of child porn is going
up and it is mainly driven by perverted children who produce their own child
porn and make it available by various means to each other and the world.


Oh well, I guess expecting an understanding of the issues involved is just
> too much to be expected by those who have previously contributed to the
> debate.
>

David - I really don't think you know what your talking about.  It's simple
math.  You want to protect a child from sexual exposure - keep them out of
the whore house.  It's common sense.

regards
joe baptista



>
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 18 June, 2009 10:14:10 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
>
> Filters and children equals Bullshit.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I send an alert about this to a colleague of mine who does human
>> rights advocacy in Germany.  Her reply very strongly supports the
>> filter, that protecting children from abuse trumps any other
>> interests.
>
>
> Filters don't protect children from abuse.  Thats a nonsense argument.  If
> you want to protect children - legislate them off the Internet.
>
> I personally think no child should have access to the Internet until they
> are 18 and older.  If they have to be 18 or older to see a dirty movie in a
> theater then the same should apply to the Internet - the biggest access
> point on the planet for fine filth and quality porn.
>
> This whole child porn thing is eventually going to blow up in our faces.
> People who make pornos about children are on the decline.  However children
> making child porn is well on the rise.  And the demand by children for child
> porn is on the rise due to the ease of distribution the Internet makes
> available to them.
>
>
>
>> I was surprised in Athens at how strong the 'save the children'
>> presence was.  I felt like one issue, information freedom, had been
>> co-opted by another, protection and that the field was not at all
>> level.
>
>
>
> Your absolutely right.  I say save the children once and for all.  No need
> for filters - which have little to do with protecting children and
> everything to do with protecting government interests.  Just pass a few laws
> to keep the little whipper snappers off the net and you solve the problem
> once an for all time.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
>
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative
> & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
>     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>
> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
>
> ------------------------------
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/mobile/tagline/*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
>
>


-- 
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/20090617/d6c1eab5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Jun 17 22:19:55 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:19:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>  <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com> <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com> <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

I don't want to sound like a supporter of Joe Baptista or Peter Dambier
here, but I also don't want unfounded things to be said about the
censorship conflict in Germany. So:

David Goldstein schrieb:

> To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is
> nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against 
> speeding. It certainly changes behaviour though.

No. It's about stopping cars that (maybe accidentially) head to a wrong
direction instead of just arresting the wrong guy at the endpoint. So
much for analogies.

> However given the childish arguments put forward by people like
> Dambier, I wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.

Don't troll unles needed, David. Especially without knowledge about the
situation in Germany.

There have been many, many, and many more arguments raised in the Gernan
debate since April. Result: Total ignorance.

> The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German 
> government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to 
> block content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then
> it's a problem.

The fundamental problem is: We will never know. The list is run by the
German Federal Police, it's secret, and there is close to zero
oversight. No judge, no prescribed procedures for taking sites off the
(un-known black) list, no nothing.

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

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


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 03:27:14 2009
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:27:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0906180027o732e8668u35827a78e0c0bdc4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

I am in two minds as to how to react to this - it is one of those clear cut
cases where freedom of expression and other rights have to be balanced and
treated with responsibility. The UN Human Rights Commission "three-part
test" refers.

However, calling it censorship is a bit alarmist. Censorship is normally
carried out to prevent the bulk of the people from accessing information of
their/ general interest and the circulation of which is a threat to the hold
on power of the government of the day. Blocking child pornography cannot be
called preventing access to information of the general interest of the bulk
of the population, pornography can be be said to be of general public
interest and the CDU does not need to suppress this kind of information to
guarantee its political power.

And I fully agree about NOT bringing Nazis and Hitler into this discussion.
What the CDU is doing in not Germany-specific - it could have been France or
any other so-called established democracy.

Blocking access to certain kinds of products is nothing new, whether this be
alcohol, drugs or adult content.

You can't freely buy child pornography (or other forms of extreme sexual
material) where you buy the rest of your books/ magazines/ newspapers, and
yet nobody complains about this as a violation of freedom of expression.

It is an accepted norm that broadcasters have a "watershed" (normally 22:00)
- which separates family viewing from so-callled adult viewing and films in
cinemas/ theatres carry ages restrictions. In my many years in the field,
I've never seen this being referred to as a violation of freedom of
expression.

Likewise, nobody would object if schools searched students' bags before
entering schools looking for pornographic material - it is seen as a measure
to protect children and society.

So, whereas controlling child pornography on the internet might raise
concerns about creating precedents for other types of internet content or
being overzealously implemented, it is a reality that the anonymity of the
internet is a contributing factor and therefore solutions must be found. Our
role as civil society is not to knee-jerk at government decisions, but to
use our vast and diverse experience to assist/ guide/ steer in finding
solutions.

So the challenge now is not to oppose the implementation of mechanisms to
fight child pornography because these infringe on freedom of expression, but
to use our common, combined and vast experience to offer alternative
solutions.

Perhaps we must look at mechanisms that allow for parent-controlled filters,
just as is the case with satellite/ cable pay television. The user/ parent
would have the freedom of using whichever software he/she chose, just like
we choose the virus/ spam/ adware/ filters that we choose.Internet cafes and
libraries or other places with public use internet would do the same ...
perhaps we could have an adults section in internet cafes, just as we have
the smokers section in restaurants in some countries! ;-).

As for children "producing" their own porn, that is an entirely different
issue altogether and to call it porn begs the question of whether understand
what porn is and what adolescent behaviour is - children are doing it for
the thrill, just like in generations before, others smoked, drank, consumed
drugs, etc, using something within their reach for shock/ status value among
their peers. Cellphones and webcams are now part of the arsenal of weapons
within their reach to impress their peers or establish their credibility
within the group. So, Joe, they are not perverted - one day they will be
successful politicians/ businessmen etc, and perhaps might have to face
having to admit that they ONCE did take part in exchanging nude/ sexual
material with their peers (just as today politicians/ etc admit to having
ONCE tried cannabis etc).

Best regards,

Rui


2009/6/17 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>

>
> I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
>
> Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing responsible
> youth hood.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> ============================================================
>
>
> "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a
> grand
> coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party -
> seems
> united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote
> on
> the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
>
> The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the
> discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in
> order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship
> architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
> pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
> administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
> obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090618/9115c33f/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Thu Jun 18 03:41:47 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:41:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <1245290367.5886.104.camel@daniel-laptop>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A393A49.2010002@peter-dambier.de>	 <304bc040906171307o5e6e92c3y7bcaa5c3fd6c2550@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A398201.7090809@peter-dambier.de> <1245290367.5886.104.camel@daniel-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A39EFBB.5050701@peter-dambier.de>

Hi Daniel

Daniel Oppermann wrote:
> Peter, I think there is no need to sell any "extra" (you mean an app to
> overcome the filter, right?). You definitely find that information for
> free on the net. 
> 

There is no need to sell such extras to people grown up with the internet
but the average people will by them and I am sure our federal police
the BKA will buy them.

> Another question:
> What do you mean with silencing people opposing child porn? In the end
> the list will be controlled by the BKA. Do you think they will put
> anyone opposing child porn on the list, maybe because some lobbyist
> convinced them to do so?

The average people finding child abuse are mom and dad finding their
daughter in the web. With filters that wont happen any longer and our
politicians can claim - we did it. There is no more child abuse.

The BKA, our federal police is short of personal. The list will be
maintained by a single officer with no more time than a single hour
per day. There exist other lists that show what happed. Dental clinics
are censored because of a typo. Please have a look at wikileaks to
see for yourselves.

Many of these leaked lists show that 90% of the censored sites are
censored without a reason.

One of those without a reason was Dr. Julius Hellenthal

http://www.julius-hellenthal.net/content/english/enHome.html

who used to live in germany and who used to have website in germany.
He was cesored by Juergen Buessow, Bezirksregierung Duesseldorf

http://www.fitug.de/news/pes/21012003_en.html

Of coarse "Bezirksregierung Duesseldorf" claimed later they had not
censored anything at all. We found later Hellenthal had trouble with
his former Boss because he saved the live of a patient his boss had
already given up. Later his boss happened to be a boss at the university
were the censoring was maintained. A student from the computer science
department told me.

So censoring is easy once it is installed and 90% censored without
a reason shows manipulation is done.

> 
> I checked the website http://www.jugendschutzprogramm.de/ and also all
> of its partners. It is definitely a product of the porn industry. So do
> you mean that there is any danger that child porn critics or in general
> filter critics could end up in this filter?

It has been proven that filter critics do end up in the filter. They have
been found among those 90% without a reason. I remember the

http://www.bnaibrith.org/

B'nai B'rith foundation has been found in those filters too.


> 
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 01:53 +0200 schrieb Peter Dambier:
> 
>>  By introducing censoring we are silencing those people
>> who oppose child abuse and we are introducing a save haven for the
>> abusing industry who can now sell a means to overcome the filters.
>> They could not sell this extra if we had closed their servers in the
>> first place.
>>
> 
> 
>>
>> Daniel Oppermann wrote:
>>> Peter, I cannot say that I am a supporter of the CDU but I have to point
>>> out that they are definitely not supporting the business of child abuse
>>> online or offline. This seems to be a little too much of a conspiracy
>>> thinking. And putting Hitler into this context is also far from reality.
>>> Sorry, but I have to state this because this kind of mixing up things
>>> gives a totally wrong picture of Germany for people living in other
>>> countries and probably trying to understand the discussion about the
>>> Internet filter going on in Germany.
>>>
>>> There is definitely a problem with the lack of democratic control of the
>>> filter list and I also agree that we are having a problem with police
>>> activities against parts of civil society or social movements (or
>>> however they prefer to be called). And behind that there are often
>>> decisions made by the CDU. But that does not make them a totalitarian
>>> party.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best, Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/6/17 Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
>>> <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>>
>>>
>>>     Aaron it looks great,
>>>
>>>     because it keeps the business running.
>>>     The things they "censor" earn a lot of money and are not allowed
>>>     to get censored. So we build a fake filter for grandma and keep
>>>     the business rolling.
>>>
>>>     The real problem:
>>>
>>>     The fake filter keeps grandma from seeing what she does not want
>>>     to see and keeps her from calling the police.
>>>
>>>     Internet researchers have shown it is easy to close those sites.
>>>     An email or a phone call can do - but that would destroy business.
>>>     After all the CDU is business oriented.
>>>
>>>     We are very much afraid of what the CDU is doing right now.
>>>     The CDU used to be the "Zentrum" or the center party and they
>>>     helped install what Hitler later on used to censor.
>>>
>>>     The "censoring" they are going to install can censor anything.
>>>     They guy who is feeding the filter is not controlled by anybody
>>>     and leaks found of other filters show that 90% of the things
>>>     filtered is just filtered for fun.
>>>
>>>     Closing your eyes does not help you avoiding a thunderstorm.
>>>
>>>     There have been police raids with thousands of homes searched
>>>     here in germany and nobody was found guilty. Servers from the
>>>     pirates party have been taken and nothing has been found.
>>>
>>>     Sites were down and people are still regarded as guilty by
>>>     their neigbars. Looks very much like NAZI germany.
>>>
>>>     Kind regards
>>>     Peter (german pirates party)
>>>
>>>     Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
>>>     >
>>>     > Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing
>>>     > responsible youth hood.
>>>     >
>>>     > Aaron
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > ==============================
>>>     > ==============================
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government
>>>     - a grand
>>>     > coalition between the German social democrats and conservative
>>>     party - seems
>>>     > united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is
>>>     to vote on
>>>     > the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
>>>     >
>>>     > The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off
>>>     and led the
>>>     > discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet
>>>     sites in
>>>     > order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a
>>>     censorship
>>>     > architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
>>>     > pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
>>>     > administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
>>>     > obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the
>>>     government".
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > --
>>>     > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
>>>     > Journalist-OutCome Mapper
>>>     > Special Assistant The President
>>>     > ASAFE
>>>     > P.O.Box 5213
>>>     > Douala-Cameroon
>>>     >
>>>     > Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
>>>     > Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>>>     >
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Peter and Karin Dambier
>>>     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>>>     Rimbacher Strasse 16
>>>     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>>>     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>>>     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
>>>     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
>>>     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>>>     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>>>     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>>>     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     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
>>>
>>>

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Thu Jun 18 07:25:09 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>  <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com> <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com> <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Ralf,

Laws don't ever, or almost never, stop the problem they set out to do. They merely set out to reduce the problem to a certain extent. There are laws against murder, yet there is still murder. So you are wrong - it is analogous to speeding. Expecting any law to stop something 100% is naive.

As for Baptista, Dambier and their cast of fools, maybe you should first understand the difference between child protection, that is protecting children from unsuitable content online, and child abuse where children are actually abused.

And thank you Rui for a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

As for suggestions tens of thousands have signed online petitions. Really? So what? What minuscule percentage actually understood what they were signing?


David



----- Original Message ----
From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, 18 June, 2009 12:19:55 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany

I don't want to sound like a supporter of Joe Baptista or Peter Dambier
here, but I also don't want unfounded things to be said about the
censorship conflict in Germany. So:

David Goldstein schrieb:

> To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is
> nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against 
> speeding. It certainly changes behaviour though.

No. It's about stopping cars that (maybe accidentially) head to a wrong
direction instead of just arresting the wrong guy at the endpoint. So
much for analogies.

> However given the childish arguments put forward by people like
> Dambier, I wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.

Don't troll unles needed, David. Especially without knowledge about the
situation in Germany.

There have been many, many, and many more arguments raised in the Gernan
debate since April. Result: Total ignorance.

> The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German 
> government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to 
> block content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then
> it's a problem.

The fundamental problem is: We will never know. The list is run by the
German Federal Police, it's secret, and there is close to zero
oversight. No judge, no prescribed procedures for taking sites off the
(un-known black) list, no nothing.

Ralf



      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 baptista at publicroot.org  Thu Jun 18 08:30:39 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:30:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0906180027o732e8668u35827a78e0c0bdc4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0906180027o732e8668u35827a78e0c0bdc4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906180530s667745f7nae3efad17aef3757@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:


> circulation of which is a threat to the hold on power of the government of
> the day. Blocking child pornography cannot be called preventing access to
> information of the general interest


Child pornography is not the issue here.  In this case child pornography is
simply being used as a sales job for rationalizing the existence of what is
a political censor.

As Peter Dambier has said before - there have been many political raids in
German against political individuals and parties where child pornography has
been used as an excuse to conduct such searches.  In the end nothing was
found.

And once again filters are being put in place with the usual sales job that
it's to protect our children.  What is happening in Germany has little to do
with law enforcement and everything to do with state control of information.

cheers
joe baptista

-- 
Joe Baptista

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

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090618/bcc0d326/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 08:45:17 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:45:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906180545p74ca7a9di464a0bef850cf08f@mail.gmail.com>

David

I agree with you.
What baffles me at times on this forum is that people refuse to think
critically when an issue crops. While others give first degree reading of
the issue, others swoop in with sentiments that hardly enlighten the
debates.

Cheers

Aaron


On 6/18/09, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Ralf,
>
> Laws don't ever, or almost never, stop the problem they set out to do. They
> merely set out to reduce the problem to a certain extent. There are laws
> against murder, yet there is still murder. So you are wrong - it is
> analogous to speeding. Expecting any law to stop something 100% is naive.
>
> As for Baptista, Dambier and their cast of fools, maybe you should first
> understand the difference between child protection, that is protecting
> children from unsuitable content online, and child abuse where children are
> actually abused.
>
> And thank you Rui for a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
>
> As for suggestions tens of thousands have signed online petitions. Really?
> So what? What minuscule percentage actually understood what they were
> signing?
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <
> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June, 2009 12:19:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
>
> I don't want to sound like a supporter of Joe Baptista or Peter Dambier
> here, but I also don't want unfounded things to be said about the
> censorship conflict in Germany. So:
>
> David Goldstein schrieb:
>
> > To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is
> > nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against
> > speeding. It certainly changes behaviour though.
>
> No. It's about stopping cars that (maybe accidentially) head to a wrong
> direction instead of just arresting the wrong guy at the endpoint. So
> much for analogies.
>
> > However given the childish arguments put forward by people like
> > Dambier, I wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.
>
> Don't troll unles needed, David. Especially without knowledge about the
> situation in Germany.
>
> There have been many, many, and many more arguments raised in the Gernan
> debate since April. Result: Total ignorance.
>
> > The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German
> > government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to
> > block content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then
> > it's a problem.
>
> The fundamental problem is: We will never know. The list is run by the
> German Federal Police, it's secret, and there is close to zero
> oversight. No judge, no prescribed procedures for taking sites off the
> (un-known black) list, no nothing.
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
>      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
>



-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090618/49beb6ec/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  Thu Jun 18 14:20:16 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:20:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
Message-ID: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.

Internet governance: the next steps
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf

Two notable bits:

First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done  
deal.  Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the  
positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever, who  
knows.  In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:

"The indication by the US government in 2006 that the current  
agreement should be the last
such agreement with ICANN was largely welcomed by the international  
community
(including the EU). At the same time, the US government has  
consistently indicated that it
will maintain effective control of the coordination of key global  
naming and addressing
functions and this is likely to mean that the problem regarding the  
‘unilateral oversight’ of
such resources will remain unresolved."

Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be  
"encouraged" in discussion forums like the IGF.  ICANN, in contrast,  
involves "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  And  
public policy and ICANN's external accountability are for governments  
to deal with:

"As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for  
unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced  
with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral  
accountability."

"At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources  
(especially those that require global coordination) need to be based  
on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."

So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are invited to  
chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the adults in  
the front.  One big happy family, all in our respective roles and  
responsibilities...

Cheers,

Bill

PS: The EC also released a communication on the Internet of the things.










***********************************************************
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 mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jun 18 15:04:02 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:04:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
In-Reply-To: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81A8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Nice summary, bill. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:20 PM
> To: Governance List
> Subject: [governance] EC on IG
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.
> 
> Internet governance: the next steps
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communica
> tion/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf
> 
> Two notable bits:
> 
> First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done
> deal.  Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the
> positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever, who
> knows.  In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:
> 
> "The indication by the US government in 2006 that the current
> agreement should be the last
> such agreement with ICANN was largely welcomed by the international
> community
> (including the EU). At the same time, the US government has
> consistently indicated that it
> will maintain effective control of the coordination of key global
> naming and addressing
> functions and this is likely to mean that the problem regarding the
> 'unilateral oversight' of
> such resources will remain unresolved."
> 
> Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be
> "encouraged" in discussion forums like the IGF.  ICANN, in contrast,
> involves "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  And
> public policy and ICANN's external accountability are for governments
> to deal with:
> 
> "As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for
> unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced
> with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral
> accountability."
> 
> "At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources
> (especially those that require global coordination) need to be based
> on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."
> 
> So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are invited to
> chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the adults in
> the front.  One big happy family, all in our respective roles and
> responsibilities...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> PS: The EC also released a communication on the Internet of the things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 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 wcurrie at apc.org  Thu Jun 18 17:24:11 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:24:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
In-Reply-To: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A3AB07B.7030807@apc.org>

Hi Bill

Two other issues also seem pertinent: one is the security argument 
underpinning the the EU
argument for external accountability by governments which is an echo of 
the 'cybersecurity' agenda in the US:

'Internet usage and penetration is now so high, especially in developed 
countries
such as those of the EU, that it has become a critical resource, where 
any serious disruption
in service can have potentially catastrophic effects on society and the 
economy....Most Internet
users in the EU therefore have a legitimate expectation about the 
reliability of
‘their Internet’. Users will also inevitably turn to their governments 
if there is any major
national disruption to their Internet service, and not to the various 
Internet governance
bodies responsible for coordinating resources.'

The USG may well draw the conclusion that the JPA should be extended  if 
the private sector
submissions to the NTIA inquiry carry the day in combination with the 
Congress' anxieties about cybersecurity.

The second is the competition issue where the EU says:

'the self-regulatory approach as practised by ICANN means that
incumbent operators play a potentially inappropriate role (e.g. from the 
standpoint of
competition policy) in setting entry conditions for new competitors'.

So it looks like a return to the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda by the EU 
on which they
have been silent about since Tunis. Will the USG go with this approach? 
I can't see it.
The NTIA inquiry has exposed ICANN's vulnerability regarding 
accountability, in a way the
ICANN President's Strategy Committee didn't fully forsee. They seemed to 
under-estimate 
the nature of US politics and the strong negative reaction of the 
private sector.

Perhaps USG will surprise us all by looking towards a multi-stakeholder 
process to resolving
ICANN's external accountability problem. Can't we come up with a 
concrete proposal in this regard?

Willie

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.
>
> Internet governance: the next steps
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf 
>
>
> Two notable bits:
>
> First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done 
> deal.  Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the 
> positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever, who 
> knows.  In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:
>
> "The indication by the US government in 2006 that the current 
> agreement should be the last
> such agreement with ICANN was largely welcomed by the international 
> community
> (including the EU). At the same time, the US government has 
> consistently indicated that it
> will maintain effective control of the coordination of key global 
> naming and addressing
> functions and this is likely to mean that the problem regarding the 
> ‘unilateral oversight’ of
> such resources will remain unresolved."
>
> Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be 
> "encouraged" in discussion forums like the IGF.  ICANN, in contrast, 
> involves "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  And 
> public policy and ICANN's external accountability are for governments 
> to deal with:
>
> "As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for 
> unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced 
> with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral 
> accountability."
>
> "At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources 
> (especially those that require global coordination) need to be based 
> on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."
>
> So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are invited to 
> chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the adults in 
> the front.  One big happy family, all in our respective roles and 
> responsibilities...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> PS: The EC also released a communication on the Internet of the things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 18:38:28 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:38:28 +0700
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
Message-ID: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>

ISPs in Pakistan resist regulator's attempts to impose
authoritarianism over the region's internet as follows:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\18\story_18-6-2009_pg5_7
ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
By Muhammad Yasir

KARACHI: The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) has asked Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to establish its own mechanism to
detect Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) with their funds deposited
in various accounts.

The Internet Services Providers of Pakistan (ISPAK) has played down
PTA directives asking them to set up expensive systems for the
detection and monitoring of illegal voices traffic available unlimited
on internet. Recently, the PTA asked ISPs to detect and monitor all
sorts of voice over traffic and internet protocols recently for the
safeguard of other telecommunication sector.

ISPAK Convener Wahaj us Siraj said PTA has invested a huge amount of
operators’ contribution for installation of such a facility and this
matter has to be tackled by PTA itself instead of passing on
additional burden on ISPs. He said the ISPs could install the VoIP
monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA provides funding for such a
facility as the industry is already in debt due to selling below the
costs and anti competitive practices. There are more than 50 ISPs
operating across the country. As per policy, they contributed 0.5
percent of their revenue to Universal Service Fund (USF); 0.1 percent
on the account of Research and Development and hundreds of thousands
of fee charges for renewal of licences. ISPs cannot take any action
against any customer doing illegal VoIP as they are lacking statutory
powers to do so, he said and added that if PTA informs of illegal
activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs’ action
can only be limited to locking that customer’s account and providing
customer details to PTA.

ISPs also termed PTA’s action of blocking the IP addresses on internet
gateways without any prior notification and evidence as insufficient.
They said they had been suffering badly, which has been brought to the
notice many times in recent past to the regulator.

PTA has its automated blocking of IP addresses that carry illegal
voice traffic that is termination and/or origination of voice packets
in a bid to check grey traffic flowing into the country

On the other hand, Chairman PTA Dr Muhammad Yaseen told Daily Times
that setting up of VoIP system is not a rocket science that could not
be done by ISPs without the assistance of authority.

They only need to install software on their network to block illegal
traffic of voices, which they are reluctant to do, he said adding that
there are scores of culprits violating authority’s law under the very
nose of ISPs. Dr Yaseen added that the authority has warned all the
ISPs again and it has decided to conduct massive operation against all
the illegal traffic users as per prescribed laws. He further said the
ISPs should cooperate with the authority to stop illegal practices
instead of supporting users’ violating watchdog’s laws.

PTA announced publicly that all (registered) call centres should
provide their IP addresses to PSEB to make sure that their voice
traffic is not blocked. Since the inception of technical facility in
May 2008 at the PTA, the IP addresses found to be involved in illegal
activities were being blocked manually and in the process, over 14
million minutes (worth around Rs 100 million) have been saved on
monthly basis. Now these would be automatically blocked if any IP, not
authorised to carry voice is found doing so. Under the current policy,
only LDIs and international call centres are authorised to carry voice
across national boundaries.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Thu Jun 18 22:26:56 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:26:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
In-Reply-To: <4A3AE56A.38B7DA26@ix.netcom.com>
References: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A3AB07B.7030807@apc.org><4A3AE56A.38B7DA26@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <1579376518-1245378736-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2073185153-@bxe1086.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Jeffrey

I find it more than passing strange that a private sector-led organisation like ICANN should have invested in an 'Instilling institutional confidence' exercise with a high-level President's Strategy Committee, the outcome of whose process failed to convince any private sector organisations, who responded to the NTIA/JPA inquiry, that ICANN's administrative procedures met the standard of good governance. The PSC process instilled no confidence in the private sector whatsoever. If that is not a serious indictment of ICANN as an institution I don't know what is. 

The question is where to from here? Continuing USG stewardship ad infinitum is not a long term solution. Asking ICANN to improve its administrative procedures and accountability has not produced the kind of changes the private sector (or civil society for that matter)  has confidence in. It's going to look pretty lame if the JPA is extended. What to do? Does anyone have the power to dismiss the ICANN Board?

Willie
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:10:02 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Willie Currie<wcurrie at apc.org>; Eric Dierker<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>; DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep<aheineman at ntia.doc.gov>
Cc: William Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>; twomey at icann.org<twomey at icann.org>; Paul Levins<paul.levins at icann.org>; Dr. Joe Baptista<baptista at publicroot.org>; Karl Auerbach<karl at CaveBear.com>; Karl E. Peters<kpeters at tldainc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] EC on IG


Willie and all,

  Good observations here Willie.  Tank you.  Yet much of your
observations have been known for some time, including those
regarding ICANN's many accountability shortcomings still outstanding
despite DOC/NTIA's recent exposures.  ICANN President's Strategy
Committee has been and still is a mostly closed process intentionally.
That is an attitude problem not a knowledge of fact problem.  Does
anyone expect such to actually change with the current ICANN
leadership now in place?  Only a fool would.

Willie Currie wrote:

> Hi Bill
>
> Two other issues also seem pertinent: one is the security argument
> underpinning the the EU
> argument for external accountability by governments which is an echo of
> the 'cybersecurity' agenda in the US:
>
> 'Internet usage and penetration is now so high, especially in developed
> countries
> such as those of the EU, that it has become a critical resource, where
> any serious disruption
> in service can have potentially catastrophic effects on society and the
> economy....Most Internet
> users in the EU therefore have a legitimate expectation about the
> reliability of
> �their Internet�. Users will also inevitably turn to their governments
> if there is any major
> national disruption to their Internet service, and not to the various
> Internet governance
> bodies responsible for coordinating resources.'
>
> The USG may well draw the conclusion that the JPA should be extended  if
> the private sector
> submissions to the NTIA inquiry carry the day in combination with the
> Congress' anxieties about cybersecurity.
>
> The second is the competition issue where the EU says:
>
> 'the self-regulatory approach as practised by ICANN means that
> incumbent operators play a potentially inappropriate role (e.g. from the
> standpoint of
> competition policy) in setting entry conditions for new competitors'.
>
> So it looks like a return to the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda by the EU
> on which they
> have been silent about since Tunis. Will the USG go with this approach?
> I can't see it.
> The NTIA inquiry has exposed ICANN's vulnerability regarding
> accountability, in a way the
> ICANN President's Strategy Committee didn't fully forsee. They seemed to
> under-estimate
> the nature of US politics and the strong negative reaction of the
> private sector.
>
> Perhaps USG will surprise us all by looking towards a multi-stakeholder
> process to resolving
> ICANN's external accountability problem. Can't we come up with a
> concrete proposal in this regard?
>
> Willie
>
> William Drake wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.
> >
> > Internet governance: the next steps
> > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf
> >
> >
> > Two notable bits:
> >
> > First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done
> > deal.  Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the
> > positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever, who
> > knows.  In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:
> >
> > "The indication by the US government in 2006 that the current
> > agreement should be the last
> > such agreement with ICANN was largely welcomed by the international
> > community
> > (including the EU). At the same time, the US government has
> > consistently indicated that it
> > will maintain effective control of the coordination of key global
> > naming and addressing
> > functions and this is likely to mean that the problem regarding the
> > �unilateral oversight� of
> > such resources will remain unresolved."
> >
> > Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be
> > "encouraged" in discussion forums like the IGF.  ICANN, in contrast,
> > involves "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  And
> > public policy and ICANN's external accountability are for governments
> > to deal with:
> >
> > "As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for
> > unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced
> > with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral
> > accountability."
> >
> > "At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources
> > (especially those that require global coordination) need to be based
> > on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."
> >
> > So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are invited to
> > chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the adults in
> > the front.  One big happy family, all in our respective roles and
> > responsibilities...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > PS: The EC also released a communication on the Internet of the things.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827


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

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

From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Thu Jun 18 23:54:17 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:54:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0906180027o732e8668u35827a78e0c0bdc4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0906180027o732e8668u35827a78e0c0bdc4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0906182054p80cbd54v2554f1c2f63dbf05@mail.gmail.com>

Rui and all,

Hello!

Let me just add a few things to what you said below.

*"Perhaps we must look at mechanisms that allow for parent-controlled
filters..."*

I have worked for 6 years with teenagers where my job was to teach teenagers
about online safety and to make sure they use the Internet effectively for
educational purposes. For a while my work entailed me to set up policy
editing where I work with the network administrator in blocking words such
as "*sex*" or "*breasts*" (*apologies if I offend anybody for the use of
such words but I am trying to present the words as specific items for
explanation purposes)* in our digital library.  The only frustration that
our students have is when they research online, for instance, about "breast
cancer,"  it won't let them open the index from the search query because the
word "breast" was blocked. So they complained but we have set our user
policies that were acknowledged by the parents themselves prior to the
implementation of the policies we set. As long as these rules are within the
guidelines as set in the student's and faculty manual, we can implement our
policies, subject to deliberation when conflicts arise. They have to comply
so they use the hard bound encyclopedias available in the library instead if
some searches are blocked online. Maybe it would also be good for them to
learn how to use encyclopedias like we did (before computers and the
Internet made it easier for us to do our school work). Or maybe it will also
teach some kid diligence.. or maybe not, but we tried. Well we did our part
in school. But we are aware that once these kids go home and use their own
computers, it is beyond our control.  So we leave it to the parents do their
roles at home. It is possible to create a balance of safety both in school
and at home if both institutions work together. I am speaking in the
standpoint as an educator.

*"As for children "producing" their own porn, that is an entirely different
issue altogether and to call it porn begs the question of whether understand
what porn is and what adolescent behaviour is - children are doing it for
the thrill, just like in generations before, others smoked, drank, consumed
drugs, etc, using something within their reach for shock/ status value among
their peers. Cellphones and webcams are now part of the arsenal of weapons
within their reach to impress their peers or establish their credibility
within the group...."*

I was in the airport waiting for my flight last May and I picked up this
Reader's Digest May 2009 issue. The cover was "Parent Alert - Is Your Child
Sexting?" The article would definitely describe what porn is and how
teenagers behave nowadays. The article even coined the word "*pornopolis of
[American] culture*" when referring on how to prevent children from
wittingly and unwittingly becoming citizens of that "pornopolis."
Fortunately, I found the article online and maybe some of you might be
interested to read it, maybe as parents.

http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/parent-alert-teens-and-porn/article125454.html

My "sentiments" on this matter may be warranted or not.  But in my own
experience, we did our fair share of "censoring" but it didn't entirely
solve the problem of child pornography. My concept of "child pornography"
has evolved into thinking nowadays of how children themselves can take off
their clothes and stand in front of a webcam or snap pictures of themselves,
and then post them online. I am not sure if current legislation on child
pornography would allow children to be prosecuted for acts they are not even
aware of as a "crime" because they consider it as a joke. By the time these
sites, where children supposedly can post their naked pictures, can be
censored for such content, the damage has been done - their friends had a
good laugh, some sleazeball  might have watched it already, and yet they
might do it again. IMHO, *parents *should act as "parents" (proactive and
reactive techniques) more than being their kids' "*friend*" (indifference
and intolerance) so it can be their strongest alternative to combating child
pornography than any legislation that cannot entirely stop this crime.

Thanks.

Regards,
Charity



On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am in two minds as to how to react to this - it is one of those clear cut
> cases where freedom of expression and other rights have to be balanced and
> treated with responsibility. The UN Human Rights Commission "three-part
> test" refers.
>
> However, calling it censorship is a bit alarmist. Censorship is normally
> carried out to prevent the bulk of the people from accessing information of
> their/ general interest and the circulation of which is a threat to the hold
> on power of the government of the day. Blocking child pornography cannot be
> called preventing access to information of the general interest of the bulk
> of the population, pornography can be be said to be of general public
> interest and the CDU does not need to suppress this kind of information to
> guarantee its political power.
>
> And I fully agree about NOT bringing Nazis and Hitler into this discussion.
> What the CDU is doing in not Germany-specific - it could have been France or
> any other so-called established democracy.
>
> Blocking access to certain kinds of products is nothing new, whether this
> be alcohol, drugs or adult content.
>
> You can't freely buy child pornography (or other forms of extreme sexual
> material) where you buy the rest of your books/ magazines/ newspapers, and
> yet nobody complains about this as a violation of freedom of expression.
>
> It is an accepted norm that broadcasters have a "watershed" (normally
> 22:00) - which separates family viewing from so-callled adult viewing and
> films in cinemas/ theatres carry ages restrictions. In my many years in the
> field, I've never seen this being referred to as a violation of freedom of
> expression.
>
> Likewise, nobody would object if schools searched students' bags before
> entering schools looking for pornographic material - it is seen as a measure
> to protect children and society.
>
> So, whereas controlling child pornography on the internet might raise
> concerns about creating precedents for other types of internet content or
> being overzealously implemented, it is a reality that the anonymity of the
> internet is a contributing factor and therefore solutions must be found. Our
> role as civil society is not to knee-jerk at government decisions, but to
> use our vast and diverse experience to assist/ guide/ steer in finding
> solutions.
>
> So the challenge now is not to oppose the implementation of mechanisms to
> fight child pornography because these infringe on freedom of expression, but
> to use our common, combined and vast experience to offer alternative
> solutions.
>
> Perhaps we must look at mechanisms that allow for parent-controlled
> filters, just as is the case with satellite/ cable pay television. The user/
> parent would have the freedom of using whichever software he/she chose, just
> like we choose the virus/ spam/ adware/ filters that we choose.Internet
> cafes and libraries or other places with public use internet would do the
> same ... perhaps we could have an adults section in internet cafes, just as
> we have the smokers section in restaurants in some countries! ;-).
>
> As for children "producing" their own porn, that is an entirely different
> issue altogether and to call it porn begs the question of whether understand
> what porn is and what adolescent behaviour is - children are doing it for
> the thrill, just like in generations before, others smoked, drank, consumed
> drugs, etc, using something within their reach for shock/ status value among
> their peers. Cellphones and webcams are now part of the arsenal of weapons
> within their reach to impress their peers or establish their credibility
> within the group. So, Joe, they are not perverted - one day they will be
> successful politicians/ businessmen etc, and perhaps might have to face
> having to admit that they ONCE did take part in exchanging nude/ sexual
> material with their peers (just as today politicians/ etc admit to having
> ONCE tried cannabis etc).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
>
>
> 2009/6/17 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
>
>>
>> I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group.
>>
>> Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing responsible
>> youth hood.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>>
>> "Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a
>> grand
>> coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party -
>> seems
>> united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote
>> on
>> the erection of an internet censorship architecture.
>>
>> The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led
>> the
>> discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites
>> in
>> order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a
>> censorship
>> architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
>> pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
>> administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
>> obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
>> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
>> Special Assistant The President
>> ASAFE
>> P.O.Box 5213
>> Douala-Cameroon
>>
>> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
>> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, 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/20090618/b60be4bb/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Fri Jun 19 04:49:45 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:49:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fibromyalgia That is censored
Message-ID: <4A3B5129.1060507@peter-dambier.de>

I wonder if it is time to speak about it yet.

There are two people I know being censored and why.

It is all about golfwar syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgie
The reason is money and oil.

Fibromyalgia was why I found out about censoring in germany and the us.

Fibromyalgia is treated like a mental disease. The two people I know censored
are

Dr. med Nicholson

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

and Dr. med Julius Hellenthal.


My wife and me could be leading a normal life today. We would have been
working and we would have earned money. But Information that would have
helped us to get rid of a nasty illness was censored back in 1997 and
it is still prevented to spread.

We do have some physicists who do cure fibromyalgia with antibiotics.
But most of the pations are treated not cured in a lunatics asylum.

I don't know why that information is censored. But I know this is the
real reason - not child porn.


There is a illness called swineflu or H1N1 spreading all over the world
except germany or is the information censored?

Information about BSE the mad cow syndrome has been censored in germany
for more than 10 years.

Lives could have been saved, families could have been saved. People
died and much later relatives would find out they died of BSE and now
they are afraid of dying that same inhuman death.

People are taking their lives because they don't know.

So subtle censoring is costing uncounted lives.

Censoring is most severe and most dangerous illness I know -
except inquisition: Try to find out about the holy inquisition
and you'll find most of the information about inquisition is censored
too because too.

There are tips showing of an iceberg:

guantanamo,

Deoise Fhearna, Roman Catholic Diocese of Ferns, Ireland,

And you might stumble across other places and things to
hot to touch.


Keep it under the carpet.
Destroy any victims and witnesses.


Censoring has destroyed my and my wifes lives. Now I am
going to destroy censoring.


Kind regards
Peter and Karin Dambier

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jun 19 07:35:00 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:35:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Why does your government make VoIP illegal to begin with? VoIP has the ability to save internet and telecom users hundreds of dollars a year. It is nothing more than a software application. I suppose the politicians who support these bans are the same ones asking for international development funds to combat the digital divide....

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:38 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
> 
> ISPs in Pakistan resist regulator's attempts to impose
> authoritarianism over the region's internet as follows:
> 
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\18\story_18-6-
> 2009_pg5_7
> ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
> By Muhammad Yasir
> 
> KARACHI: The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) has asked Pakistan
> Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to establish its own mechanism to
> detect Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) with their funds deposited
> in various accounts.
> 
> The Internet Services Providers of Pakistan (ISPAK) has played down
> PTA directives asking them to set up expensive systems for the
> detection and monitoring of illegal voices traffic available unlimited
> on internet. Recently, the PTA asked ISPs to detect and monitor all
> sorts of voice over traffic and internet protocols recently for the
> safeguard of other telecommunication sector.
> 
> ISPAK Convener Wahaj us Siraj said PTA has invested a huge amount of
> operators' contribution for installation of such a facility and this
> matter has to be tackled by PTA itself instead of passing on
> additional burden on ISPs. He said the ISPs could install the VoIP
> monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA provides funding for such a
> facility as the industry is already in debt due to selling below the
> costs and anti competitive practices. There are more than 50 ISPs
> operating across the country. As per policy, they contributed 0.5
> percent of their revenue to Universal Service Fund (USF); 0.1 percent
> on the account of Research and Development and hundreds of thousands
> of fee charges for renewal of licences. ISPs cannot take any action
> against any customer doing illegal VoIP as they are lacking statutory
> powers to do so, he said and added that if PTA informs of illegal
> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> can only be limited to locking that customer's account and providing
> customer details to PTA.
> 
> ISPs also termed PTA's action of blocking the IP addresses on internet
> gateways without any prior notification and evidence as insufficient.
> They said they had been suffering badly, which has been brought to the
> notice many times in recent past to the regulator.
> 
> PTA has its automated blocking of IP addresses that carry illegal
> voice traffic that is termination and/or origination of voice packets
> in a bid to check grey traffic flowing into the country
> 
> On the other hand, Chairman PTA Dr Muhammad Yaseen told Daily Times
> that setting up of VoIP system is not a rocket science that could not
> be done by ISPs without the assistance of authority.
> 
> They only need to install software on their network to block illegal
> traffic of voices, which they are reluctant to do, he said adding that
> there are scores of culprits violating authority's law under the very
> nose of ISPs. Dr Yaseen added that the authority has warned all the
> ISPs again and it has decided to conduct massive operation against all
> the illegal traffic users as per prescribed laws. He further said the
> ISPs should cooperate with the authority to stop illegal practices
> instead of supporting users' violating watchdog's laws.
> 
> PTA announced publicly that all (registered) call centres should
> provide their IP addresses to PSEB to make sure that their voice
> traffic is not blocked. Since the inception of technical facility in
> May 2008 at the PTA, the IP addresses found to be involved in illegal
> activities were being blocked manually and in the process, over 14
> million minutes (worth around Rs 100 million) have been saved on
> monthly basis. Now these would be automatically blocked if any IP, not
> authorised to carry voice is found doing so. Under the current policy,
> only LDIs and international call centres are authorised to carry voice
> across national boundaries.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From email at hakik.org  Fri Jun 19 09:50:21 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:50:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.
 syr.edu>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20090619135033.751B4CF046@smtp3.electricembers.net>

VoIP is also banned in Bangladesh! Despite, many efforts and 
propaganda the government failed to legalize it since last 15 years 
or so. Perhaps, there are reasons that only the government can 
explain. I was in one of the VoIP formulation (?) committee once, and 
the legalization issue was there.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 12:35 PM 6/19/2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Why does your government make VoIP illegal to begin with? VoIP has 
>the ability to save internet and telecom users hundreds of dollars a 
>year. It is nothing more than a software application. I suppose the 
>politicians who support these bans are the same ones asking for 
>international development funds to combat the digital divide....
>
>--MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:38 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
> >
> > ISPs in Pakistan resist regulator's attempts to impose
> > authoritarianism over the region's internet as follows:
> >
> > http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\18\story_18-6-
> > 2009_pg5_7
> > ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
> > By Muhammad Yasir
> >
> > KARACHI: The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) has asked Pakistan
> > Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to establish its own mechanism to
> > detect Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) with their funds deposited
> > in various accounts.
> >
> > The Internet Services Providers of Pakistan (ISPAK) has played down
> > PTA directives asking them to set up expensive systems for the
> > detection and monitoring of illegal voices traffic available unlimited
> > on internet. Recently, the PTA asked ISPs to detect and monitor all
> > sorts of voice over traffic and internet protocols recently for the
> > safeguard of other telecommunication sector.
> >
> > ISPAK Convener Wahaj us Siraj said PTA has invested a huge amount of
> > operators' contribution for installation of such a facility and this
> > matter has to be tackled by PTA itself instead of passing on
> > additional burden on ISPs. He said the ISPs could install the VoIP
> > monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA provides funding for such a
> > facility as the industry is already in debt due to selling below the
> > costs and anti competitive practices. There are more than 50 ISPs
> > operating across the country. As per policy, they contributed 0.5
> > percent of their revenue to Universal Service Fund (USF); 0.1 percent
> > on the account of Research and Development and hundreds of thousands
> > of fee charges for renewal of licences. ISPs cannot take any action
> > against any customer doing illegal VoIP as they are lacking statutory
> > powers to do so, he said and added that if PTA informs of illegal
> > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > can only be limited to locking that customer's account and providing
> > customer details to PTA.
> >
> > ISPs also termed PTA's action of blocking the IP addresses on internet
> > gateways without any prior notification and evidence as insufficient.
> > They said they had been suffering badly, which has been brought to the
> > notice many times in recent past to the regulator.
> >
> > PTA has its automated blocking of IP addresses that carry illegal
> > voice traffic that is termination and/or origination of voice packets
> > in a bid to check grey traffic flowing into the country
> >
> > On the other hand, Chairman PTA Dr Muhammad Yaseen told Daily Times
> > that setting up of VoIP system is not a rocket science that could not
> > be done by ISPs without the assistance of authority.
> >
> > They only need to install software on their network to block illegal
> > traffic of voices, which they are reluctant to do, he said adding that
> > there are scores of culprits violating authority's law under the very
> > nose of ISPs. Dr Yaseen added that the authority has warned all the
> > ISPs again and it has decided to conduct massive operation against all
> > the illegal traffic users as per prescribed laws. He further said the
> > ISPs should cooperate with the authority to stop illegal practices
> > instead of supporting users' violating watchdog's laws.
> >
> > PTA announced publicly that all (registered) call centres should
> > provide their IP addresses to PSEB to make sure that their voice
> > traffic is not blocked. Since the inception of technical facility in
> > May 2008 at the PTA, the IP addresses found to be involved in illegal
> > activities were being blocked manually and in the process, over 14
> > million minutes (worth around Rs 100 million) have been saved on
> > monthly basis. Now these would be automatically blocked if any IP, not
> > authorised to carry voice is found doing so. Under the current policy,
> > only LDIs and international call centres are authorised to carry voice
> > across national boundaries.
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 19 10:23:51 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:23:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Why does your government make VoIP illegal to begin with? VoIP has the ability to save internet and telecom users hundreds of dollars a year. It is nothing more than a software application. I suppose the politicians who support these bans are the same ones asking for international development funds to combat the digital divide...
>   
You know the reason. Many governments in the developing or transitional 
countries have at various points imposed restrictions on the grounds 
that it bleeds revenue from the dominant incumbent carriers' PSTNs and 
undermines their control. I don't have current information at hand 
(would appreciate pointers from anyone who does) but back in 2001, when 
the ITU did a World Telecom Policy Forum on IP telephony, staff did a SG 
report that included the tables below (cut and paste from a Word doc, 
apologies if they get garbled). I seem to remember hearing higher 
numbers back then, like that > 50 countries had significant or total 
prohibitions, but my memory is fuzzy, don't know about now.

I guess this is why I don't clean all the old gunk off my computer, you 
never know when you might want something obscure...

Bill




Table B.1: Countries that include IP Telephony (i.e. voice and fax over 
_both_ the Internet and IP-based networks) within their regulatory 
system or that do not specifically regulate IP Telephony

*/No specific prohibition for voice/fax over the Public Internet or over 
IP-based networks/*

	

*/Permitted or not regulated, if not real-time/*/ (not considered voice 
telephony)/

	

*/Permitted. If real-time, subject to light conditions 
/*/(notification/registration may be required, other basic provisions of 
voice regulation)/

	

*/Permitted. If real-time, treated similarly to other voice 
telecommunications services/*/ (licensable, subject to more extensive 
provisions of voice regulation)/

*Angola** *

*Antigua** and Barbuda**^1 *

*Argentina***

*Bhutan***

*Congo***

*Costa Rica***

*Dominican Republic***

*Estonia**^2 ***

*Gambia***

*Guatemala***

*Guyana***

*Madagascar***

*Malta***

*Mexico***

*Mongolia**^2 ***

*Nepal***

*New Zealand***

*Peru**^6 ***

*Poland***

*Slovak** Republic***

*St Lucia**^1 *

*St Vincent**^3 ***

*Tonga***

*Uganda***

*United States**^4 ***

*Viet Nam***

	

*EU Countries**^5 ***

*Hungary***

(if delay =/>250ms and packet loss >1%)

*Iceland***

*Norway***

	

*Czech** Republic* *Hongkong SAR*

*Japan***

*Singapore***

*Switzerland***

* *

	

*Australia** *

*Canada***

*China***

*Israel***

*Korea** (Rep.)*

*Malaysia***

*Morocco***

/Notes/: Depending on whether or not speech transmission is “real-time”, 
normal voice regulation may apply to varying degrees. Regulatory 
information on the real-time nature of the service is not available for 
all countries.

*^1 * In Antigua & Barbuda and St Lucia, the use of the public Internet 
is not prohibited for voice and fax, but no data is available on the use 
of IP-based networks for these services.

*^2 *In Estonia, both domestic and international phone calls over 
IP-based networks were prohibited until Dec. 31, 2000. Public IP 
Telephony was also prohibited until 31 Dec 2000. In Mongolia, 
international telephone calls over the public Internet were prohibited 
until Dec. 31, 2000.

^3 In St Vincent, the use of IP-based networks is not prohibited, but no 
data is available regarding the use of the public Internet for voice and 
fax services

^4* * The United States permits IP Telephony unconditionally, i.e. it is 
exempt from the international settlements regime.

*^5 *The 15 countries of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

*^6 * 1n Peru, licensees (national, international and long-distance 
service providers) can use any technology, including IP. However, for 
value-added service providers, real-time voice over IP is not permitted.

/Source: / This table is based on the ITU 2000 Regulatory Survey and ITU 
case studies. Changes or clarifications to this table that were 
submitted by Member States in the context of WTPF-01 have been noted.

Table B.2: Countries that permit voice/fax services over _either_ the 
Public Internet _or_ IP-based networks (but not both)

*/Country/*

	

*/Use of the Public Internet/*

	

*/Use of IP-based networks/*

*/ /*

*Cyprus***

* *

	

*Prohibited*

	

*Not prohibited*

*Ethiopia***

* *

	

*Prohibited*

	

*Not prohibited*

*Ecuador***

	

*Not prohibited*

(Telephony over Internet is permitted in applications through end user 
software and/or end user terminals)**

	

* *

*India***

	

*Prohibited*

	

*Not prohibited*

*Kenya***

* *

	

*Prohibited*

(voice services; includes call-back and refile)

	

*Not prohibited*

*Kyrgyzstan***

* *

	

*Not prohibited*

* *

	

*Prohibited*

(IP Telephony until 2003)

*Philippines***

* *

	

*Prohibited*

* *

	

*Not prohibited*

*Sri Lanka***

* *

	

*Not prohibited*

	

*Prohibited*

(voice services)

/ /

/Source: /This table is based on the ITU 2000 Regulatory Survey. Changes 
or clarifications that were submitted by Member States in the context of 
WTPF-01 have been noted.

*
*

Table B.3: Countries that prohibit the use of _both_ the Public Internet 
_and_ IP-based networks for voice or fax services

*/Countries /*

	

*/ Specifics given/*

*Albania***

	

Voice services over IP-based networks prohibited until 2003

*Azerbaijan***

	

*Belize***

	

All services prohibited

*Botswana***

	

Voice prohibited over the public Internet

*Cambodia***

	

Voice prohibited indefinitely

*Cameroon***

	

Telephony prohibited over the public Internet;

Telephony and Fax prohibited over IP-based networks

*Côte d’Ivoire***

	

Voice prohibited over the public Internet until 2004

*Croatia***

	

*Cuba***

	

Telephony prohibited over the public Internet and IP networks

Telephony over public networks based on IP allowed for the licensed 
voice operator

*Eritrea***

	

Voice is prohibited for some years to come (both over the public 
Internet and IP-based networks)

*Ethiopia***

	

Voice and fax services prohibited over both the Public Internet and 
IP-based networks

*Gabon***

	

Telephony prohibited (both over the public Internet and IP-based networks)

*Indonesia***

	

Telephony prohibited over the public Internet. Regulation now under 
preparationo allow voice over IP-based networks

*India***

	

India prohibits the use of voice services over the public Internet, but 
did not respond to the question relating to IP-based networks

*Israel***

	

Telephony prohibited over the public Internet

Both voice and fax prohibited over IP-based networks

*Jordan***

	

Voice prohibited over the public Internet. Voice and fax services 
prohibited over IP-based networks until the end of 2004

*Latvia***

	

*Lithuania***

	

Voice prohibited over both the public Internet and IP-based networks 
until Dec. 31, 2002

*Mozambique***

	

Voice and Fax services prohibited over both the public Internet and 
IP-based networks

*Myanmar***

	

*Nicaragua***

	

Voice services prohibited over both the public Internet and IP-based 
networks

*Nigeria***

	

Voice and fax prohibited over IP-based networks at this time

*Pakistan***

	

Voice termination services prohibited over the public Internet

Voice prohibited over IP-based networks

*Paraguay***

	

Voice services prohibited over both the public Internet and IP-based 
networks

*Qatar***

	

Telephony and Fax prohibited over both the public Internet and IP-based 
networks, subject to review

*Romania***

	

Voice services prohibited over the public Internet

Voice services prohibited until at least Jan. 1, 2003

*Senegal***

	

Telephony prohibited over the public Internet

*Seychelles***

	

Voice and fax over the public Internet are prohibited, but Internet 
Telephony, which is an Internet application rather than a 
telecommunication service, provided by an ISP is permitted. All services 
over IP-based networks are prohibited.

*Swaziland***

	

*Thailand***

	

Voice and fax services prohibited over both the public Internet and 
IP-based networks

*Togo***

	

*Trinidad and Tobago***

	

Voice services prohibited over IP-based networks

*Tunisia***

	

*Turkey***

	

Voice prohibited over both the public Internet and IP-based networks


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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Fri Jun 19 11:38:13 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:38:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>


Le 19 juin 09 à 16:23, William Drake a écrit :

> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Why does your government make VoIP illegal to begin with? VoIP has  
>> the ability to save internet and telecom users hundreds of dollars  
>> a year. It is nothing more than a software application. I suppose  
>> the politicians who support these bans are the same ones asking  
>> for international development funds to combat the digital divide...
>>
> You know the reason. Many governments in the developing or  
> transitional countries have at various points imposed restrictions  
> on the grounds that it bleeds revenue from the dominant incumbent  
> carriers' PSTNs and undermines their control. I don't have current  
> information at hand (would appreciate pointers from anyone who  
> does) but back in 2001, when the ITU did a World Telecom Policy  
> Forum on IP telephony, staff did a SG report that included the  
> tables below (cut and paste from a Word doc, apologies if they get  
> garbled). I seem to remember hearing higher numbers back then, like  
> that > 50 countries had significant or total prohibitions, but my  
> memory is fuzzy, don't know about now.



There could be other reasons for VoIP prohibition, which are related  
to control. Some proprietary VoIP protocols (e.g. skype) make it hard  
to wiretap phone conversation (because of encryption). On the other  
hand, because they're proprietary, some fear that skype conversation  
might be listened to for (economic or other kind of) intelligence  
purpose. The last reason explains why skype is forbidden, e.g., in  
all French universities and research centers.
Obviously, these reasons can be combined with protection of telecom  
operators revenues. They could be protected at the government level  
(total prohibition in a country) or by the telcos themselves, e.g.  
through contractual restrictions on Internet access through mobile  
phones. The latter are very common in France, and they generally  
concern both P2P and VoIP protocols.

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

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


From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Jun 19 17:36:14 2009
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:06:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
In-Reply-To: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A3C04CE.7040905@cis-india.org>

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.
> 
> Internet governance: the next steps
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf
> 
> 
> Two notable bits:
> 
> First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done
> deal.  Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the
> positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever, who
> knows.  In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:
[...]
> Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be "encouraged"
> in discussion forums like the IGF.  ICANN, in contrast, involves
> "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  And public
> policy and ICANN's external accountability are for governments to deal
> with:
> 
> "As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for
> unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced
> with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral
> accountability."

I also believe that a few other implications of the document need to be
thought about.
(From Ars Technica, <http://bit.ly/TUxhB>):
> As the cliché goes, however, the Commission might want to be careful
> what it wishes for. In its effort to seem a bit less self-interested,
> the document is careful to phrase its call for additional oversight
> as suggesting that the input be International, and not EU-specific.
> One sentence in particular highlights some of the risks here: "The EU
> also believes that future internet governance arrangements should
> comply with key principles, in particular, the respect for human
> rights and freedom of expression as well as the need to preserve
> stability and security of the Internet."
> 
> Nations like China and Iran have recently demonstrated that their
> desire for "stability and security" winds up in pretty direct
> conflict with traditional European human rights values. The EU will
> have to pursue a careful balancing act if it hopes to obtain a level
> of oversight it finds acceptable without opening ICANN to being a
> vehicle for politically expedient limits.

While China and Iran may be easy targets, I believe many countries,
including those countries that have traditionally been seen as upholding
'traditional European human rights values' (whatever that means), such
as India, Germany, Italy, etc., also plump for 'stability and security'
in the sense that the article talks about.

Furthermore, I believe that "stability and security of the Internet"
must be distinguished from "stability and security" per se.

> "At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources
> (especially those that require global coordination) need to be based on
> multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."
> 
> So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are invited to
> chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the adults in
> the front.  One big happy family, all in our respective roles and
> responsibilities...

That does seem to be the case.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090620/e01163a0/attachment.sig>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Jun 19 17:30:58 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:30:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
In-Reply-To: <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>

David, Joe, Peter and all,
technically this debate seems senseless, because the internet being 
discussed just does not exist. Neither in law, nor in technology. 
This is the first problem we meet everywhere. Please first legally 
define what you are talking about. So the debate may stop being 
emotional, subjective, irreal, etc. On one side we are talking of 
bits and protocols, on the other side we are talking of human 
behaviour and laws.

Let start from an example David and Joe know well: domain names. The 
worldwide claimed and acclaimed ICANN success is UDRP. The UDRP 
document starts with a legal recital, documenting the meaning of 
theterms being used, ... except what a ... domain name is. The US and 
new IETF definition of the Internet is every packetswitch network 
interoperable computer. And both understand it as under their 
political/technical jurisdiction or influence. The French law, which 
is an application of the European directives, discusses the "public 
online communication" that may use the "internet" (small "i") : it 
does not bother defining (this is no more legal but common 
terminology). The first question is therefore: what are we talking about.

What are discussed here are not laws to punish crime that would 
actually (100% or not) prevent crimes, but laws that would prevent 
bows and arrows to be able to kill specific targets [quite 
hazardeous] while everyone may have access to guns [what makes the 
debate somewhat outdated]. While also, nobody realizes that the IETF 
"standards" are just "influences" (the very IETF mission definition 
by RFC 3935) to make the Internet work in a way the IETF better along 
its own core values.

By no means they are describing any technical obligations or reality. 
It happens that the Internet we use everyday is by far more powerfull 
and versatile, and that it is actually more and more used everyday in 
ways which architecturally are sounder than the way ICANN, ISOC, and 
Govs believes it. This is no surprise for the IETF (this is plainly 
explained in the very same RFC 3935: the IETF is here to analyse, 
document, integrate new developments made outside of it). Today such 
developments are taking advantage from IDNs and are carried by China 
and hundred of millions of users.  The current technology we use 
makes intercontinental machine guns free and available everywhere.

Summary: what you discuss are the relations between two orthogonal 
things: technology and law. In addition they have different 
development cycles, no common basis (as people are not left any 
control in the way the technology is designed) and different 
"jurisdictions". Protocols are for machines, laws are for people. The 
interesting issue in Hadopi and other legislations is that they want 
to impose laws on machines to force people to respect societal 
protocols, upto making machines to judge people.

jfc




At 13:25 18/06/2009, David Goldstein wrote:
>Ralf,
>
>Laws don't ever, or almost never, stop the problem they set out to 
>do. They merely set out to reduce the problem to a certain extent. 
>There are laws against murder, yet there is still murder. So you are 
>wrong - it is analogous to speeding. Expecting any law to stop 
>something 100% is naive.
>
>As for Baptista, Dambier and their cast of fools, maybe you should 
>first understand the difference between child protection, that is 
>protecting children from unsuitable content online, and child abuse 
>where children are actually abused.
>
>And thank you Rui for a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
>
>As for suggestions tens of thousands have signed online petitions. 
>Really? So what? What minuscule percentage actually understood what 
>they were signing?
>
>
>David
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>Sent: Thursday, 18 June, 2009 12:19:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [governance] The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
>
>I don't want to sound like a supporter of Joe Baptista or Peter Dambier
>here, but I also don't want unfounded things to be said about the
>censorship conflict in Germany. So:
>
>David Goldstein schrieb:
>
> > To use the argument that blocking child pornography is ineffective is
> > nonsensical. People still speed in cars yet there are laws against
> > speeding. It certainly changes behaviour though.
>
>No. It's about stopping cars that (maybe accidentially) head to a wrong
>direction instead of just arresting the wrong guy at the endpoint. So
>much for analogies.
>
> > However given the childish arguments put forward by people like
> > Dambier, I wouldn't expect there to be much knowledge on such issues.
>
>Don't troll unles needed, David. Especially without knowledge about the
>situation in Germany.
>
>There have been many, many, and many more arguments raised in the Gernan
>debate since April. Result: Total ignorance.
>
> > The issue is how far does such a list such as proposed by the German
> > government, and also the Australian government, go. If it's used to
> > block content such as child porn, great. If it goes further, then
> > it's a problem.
>
>The fundamental problem is: We will never know. The list is run by the
>German Federal Police, it's secret, and there is close to zero
>oversight. No judge, no prescribed procedures for taking sites off the
>(un-known black) list, no nothing.
>
>Ralf
>
>
>
>       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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 20 00:36:18 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: 4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch
Message-ID: <sympa.1245472282.31587.888@lists.cpsr.org>

Bill thanks for posting the ITU's 2001 Report*

My feeling is that if you want to understand Pakistan's position today, One
must look back too Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ** "President of Pakistan from 1971 to
1973 and as Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977. He was the founder of the
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), the largest and most influential political party
in Pakistan." ... 

"In early 1972, Bhutto nationalized ten categories of major industries"
(Incl. Telephone)

Today the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) holds 30% of the vote.***

Many of the Countries on the ITU's 2001 list, are 'nationalized'
infrastructures, some by necessity, some by political ambitions.

That's why it is, the way it is.

-

* Ref.:
Annex B
STATUS OF IP TELEPHONY IN ITU MEMBER STATES
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/wtpf/wtpf2001/sgreport/revisedversion9march/secgenreport_e.html
-

**
Wiki - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto
-

***
Politics of Pakistan - Political parties and elections
Composition of Parliament (As per Results of the 2008 General Elections)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Pakistan#Political_parties_and_elections
---

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jun 20 06:57:20 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:57:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906200357t3208123du3d5d77f9d2fcedea@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM, William Drake <
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Why does your government make VoIP illegal to begin with? VoIP has the
>> ability to save internet and telecom users hundreds of dollars a year. It is
>> nothing more than a software application. I suppose the politicians who
>> support these bans are the same ones asking for international development
>> funds to combat the digital divide...
>>
>>
> You know the reason. Many governments in the developing or transitional
> countries have at various points imposed restrictions on the grounds that it
> bleeds revenue from the dominant incumbent carriers' PSTNs




That's the old paradigm, still somewhat followed.  The new one seems to be
"protect the (mobile) telcos as they are the new cash cow in terms of tax
(and other, more dodgy) gov't revenues"


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090620/3dc447d5/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  Sat Jun 20 09:24:04 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:24:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch> <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <52616D63-DFF2-4988-AA48-926F56F2FE4B@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Meryem,

On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> There could be other reasons for VoIP prohibition, which are related  
> to control. Some proprietary VoIP protocols (e.g. skype) make it  
> hard to wiretap phone conversation (because of encryption). On the  
> other hand, because they're proprietary, some fear that skype  
> conversation might be listened to for (economic or other kind of)  
> intelligence purpose.

Sure, problem definitions evolve and change over time, and of course  
vary across actors including state agencies etc.  Back in the day the  
ministries of comm and PTT/PTOs were clearly most concerned about loss  
of revenue and economic control over the networking environment.  VOIP  
was very much seen in telecom policy circles as another "new mode of  
operation" that---like international international simple resale, call- 
back, hubbing and refile, and erosion of the accounting and  
settlements system---undermined market dominance.  I don' recall  
anyone in ITU or related industry circles talking much about security/ 
surveillance concerns, although undoubtedly there were people in other  
agencies/ministries that saw things through that lens.  But post-9/11  
security/surveillance has become a generalized preoccupation across  
agencies/ministries, one that inter alia has been in substantial  
tension with the whole global market liberalization campaign launched  
in the early 80s.

> The last reason explains why skype is forbidden, e.g., in all French  
> universities and research centers.

Seriously?  Your sysadmin blocks downloading the program?  If a techie  
figures out a work around and install, uses, and is discovered, what  
happens, are campus police sent?

> Obviously, these reasons can be combined with protection of telecom  
> operators revenues. They could be protected at the government level  
> (total prohibition in a country) or by the telcos themselves, e.g.  
> through contractual restrictions on Internet access through mobile  
> phones. The latter are very common in France, and they generally  
> concern both P2P and VoIP protocols.

Right, there are a variety of differentiated treatments, as was  
reflected in the ITU tables I sent, which alas lost the formatting but  
were hopefully still readable.

Best,

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Jun 20 16:27:50 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:27:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <52616D63-DFF2-4988-AA48-926F56F2FE4B@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch> <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org> <52616D63-DFF2-4988-AA48-926F56F2FE4B@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <7D222BB5-DD04-4BC4-ADC0-4C5CFA47281B@ras.eu.org>


Le 20 juin 09 à 15:24, William Drake a écrit :
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>

>> The last reason explains why skype is forbidden, e.g., in all  
>> French universities and research centers.
>
> Seriously?  Your sysadmin blocks downloading the program?  If a  
> techie figures out a work around and install, uses, and is  
> discovered, what happens, are campus police sent?

I said forbidden, not unused... And we do have a 'security and  
defense officer' with the education and research ministry, though no  
campus police.


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

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


From peter at peter-dambier.de  Sat Jun 20 17:36:07 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:36:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com> <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com> <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com> <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>

There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.

Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the pirates.

Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
That is much earlier than we expected.


Cheers
Peter and Karin


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Sat Jun 20 17:46:13 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:46:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906201446s5bb36f1agca42d1125a800f5a@mail.gmail.com>

Peter - congratulations.

When did this happen?  Today?

regards
joe baptista

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>wrote:

> There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
>
> Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the
> pirates.
>
> Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
> That is much earlier than we expected.
>
>
> Cheers
> Peter and Karin
>
>
> --
> Peter and Karin Dambier
> Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> Rimbacher Strasse 16
> D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
> http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
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/20090620/fd31aee5/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Sat Jun 20 19:10:28 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:10:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906201446s5bb36f1agca42d1125a800f5a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	 <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>	 <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de> <874c02a20906201446s5bb36f1agca42d1125a800f5a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3D6C64.5050101@peter-dambier.de>

Hi Joe,

today we had demos all over germany because of the censoring law.

During the Berlin demo, right in front of the scocial democrats building
Joerg Tauss was a speaker and he declared he had left the social democrats
and would join the pirates right now and he was waving a pirates flag.

Cheers
Peter and Karin


Joe Baptista wrote:
> Peter - congratulations.
> 
> When did this happen?  Today?
> 
> regards
> joe baptista
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
> <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>> wrote:
> 
>     There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
> 
>     Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the
>     pirates.
> 
>     Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
>     That is much earlier than we expected.
> 
> 
>     Cheers
>     Peter and Karin
> 
> 
>     --
>     Peter and Karin Dambier
>     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>     Rimbacher Strasse 16
>     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
>     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
>     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joe Baptista
> 
> www.publicroot.org <http://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
> <http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com>

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Sat Jun 20 19:21:51 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:21:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <4A3D6C64.5050101@peter-dambier.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>
	 <874c02a20906201446s5bb36f1agca42d1125a800f5a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A3D6C64.5050101@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906201621q2511a220w3072af61d6f90c9e@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Peter - just added the news to my tweets.  Have a lot of pirates
tweeting me these days.  Must be the stuff I wrote on the virtual gun.

cheers
joe baptista

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de>wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> today we had demos all over germany because of the censoring law.
>
> During the Berlin demo, right in front of the scocial democrats building
> Joerg Tauss was a speaker and he declared he had left the social democrats
> and would join the pirates right now and he was waving a pirates flag.
>
> Cheers
> Peter and Karin
>
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
> > Peter - congratulations.
> >
> > When did this happen?  Today?
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
> > <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
> >
> >     Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the
> >     pirates.
> >
> >     Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
> >     That is much earlier than we expected.
> >
> >
> >     Cheers
> >     Peter and Karin
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Peter and Karin Dambier
> >     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> >     Rimbacher Strasse 16
> >     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> >     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> >     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>)
> >     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
> >     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> >     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> >     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> >     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > www.publicroot.org <http://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
> > <http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com>
>
> --
> Peter and Karin Dambier
> Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
> Rimbacher Strasse 16
> D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
> +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
> http://www.peter-dambier.de/
> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
> ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>



-- 
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/20090620/0dfa671f/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 Jun 21 03:09:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:09:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906201621q2511a220w3072af61d6f90c9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C66419DF.3435%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

For those who want a quick primer on Pirate Party (like I did)

Basic political position of the Swedish Pirates

http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english


My favourite quote

³Culture and knowledge are good things, that increase in value the more they
are shared. The Internet could become the greatest public library ever
created².


And from a music industry perspective

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage
=all



My favourite quote

³What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of
producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in
plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news
for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians.²

On 21/06/09 9:21 AM, "Joe Baptista" <baptista at publicroot.org> wrote:

> Thanks Peter - just added the news to my tweets.  Have a lot of pirates
> tweeting me these days.  Must be the stuff I wrote on the virtual gun.
> 
> cheers
> joe baptista
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> today we had demos all over germany because of the censoring law.
>> 
>> During the Berlin demo, right in front of the scocial democrats building
>> Joerg Tauss was a speaker and he declared he had left the social democrats
>> and would join the pirates right now and he was waving a pirates flag.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Peter and Karin
>> 
>> 
>> Joe Baptista wrote:
>>> > Peter - congratulations.
>>> >
>>> > When did this happen?  Today?
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> > joe baptista
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Peter Dambier <peter at peter-dambier.de
>>> > <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
>>> >
>>> >     Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the
>>> >     pirates.
>>> >
>>> >     Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
>>> >     That is much earlier than we expected.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     Cheers
>>> >     Peter and Karin
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     --
>>> >     Peter and Karin Dambier
>>> >     Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>>> >     Rimbacher Strasse 16
>>> >     D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>>> >     +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>>> >     +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de>
>>> <http://sipgate.de>)
>>> >     mail: peter at peter-dambier.de <mailto:peter at peter-dambier.de>
>>> >     http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>>> >     http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>>> >     https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>>> >     ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >     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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Joe Baptista
>>> >
>>> > www.publicroot.org <http://www.publicroot.org>
>>> <http://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
>>> <http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com>
>>> > <http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com>
>> 
>> --
>> Peter and Karin Dambier
>> Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
>> Rimbacher Strasse 16
>> D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
>> +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
>> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de <http://sipgate.de> )
>> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
>> http://www.peter-dambier.de/
>> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
>> ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090621/adc00e07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun 21 08:31:43 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:31:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> On the other
> hand, because they're proprietary, some fear that skype conversation
> might be listened to for (economic or other kind of) intelligence
> purpose.

I don't get the connection. "Because the protocols are proprietary" they might be wiretapped? Huh? Whether they are wiretapped or not would seem to have nothing to do with the patent status of the codecs or protocols. 



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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Jun 21 13:32:38 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:32:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch> <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>


Le 21 juin 09 à 14:31, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

>> -----Original Message-----
>> On the other
>> hand, because they're proprietary, some fear that skype conversation
>> might be listened to for (economic or other kind of) intelligence
>> purpose.
>
> I don't get the connection. "Because the protocols are proprietary"  
> they might be wiretapped? Huh? Whether they are wiretapped or not  
> would seem to have nothing to do with the patent status of the  
> codecs or protocols.

Wiretapped may not be the right word here. But the point is that  
since skype is proprietary, it is difficult to know how it operates,  
and in particular whether or not it allows interceptions of data.  
This fear is increased by the fact that skype uses the P2P  
technology, so one doesn't really know through which servers the data  
are transmitted.
The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was  
issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Jun 21 13:53:37 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:53:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <C66419DF.3435%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C66419DF.3435%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <BBE8A696-AFF9-48B2-B2F8-09CA3C1BA3AB@ras.eu.org>


Le 21 juin 09 à 09:09, Ian Peter a écrit :

> For those who want a quick primer on Pirate Party (like I did)
>
> Basic political position of the Swedish Pirates
>
> http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

This might be fine for an NGO, but not for a political party. The  
point is that a political party is expected to have a vision on  
society as a whole. And a member of Parliament has to express  
positions and to act on different matters dealt with by the Parliament.
I find stupid at the latest, and otherwise suspect, to state e.g.  
"The Pirate Party has no opinion on whether Sweden should or should  
not be a member of the European Union, (...)" or, when you don't  
explain why: "The proposed European Union constitution that France  
and the Netherlands voted against shall not be accepted, neither in  
its original form nor with cosmetic changes." In each country, there  
have been very different reasons why a majority of French, Dutch, and  
later Irish people said no to the Constitutional Treaty. What are  
exactly the ones supported by the PP? Those of the left, or those of  
the populists and extreme right wing?
When the PP representative will have to vote on, say, EU immigration  
policy, or EU common agricultural policy, or labor policy, what will  
be his votes? Based on which rationale and reasons?

Best,
Meryem

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

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Sun Jun 21 14:32:00 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:32:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <BBE8A696-AFF9-48B2-B2F8-09CA3C1BA3AB@ras.eu.org>
References: <C66419DF.3435%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <BBE8A696-AFF9-48B2-B2F8-09CA3C1BA3AB@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906211132j2f3db137w473947dd58083c3b@mail.gmail.com>

A political party is about vision.  The Pirates have vision.

Least we forget the pirate party is the operator of .pirates a live top
level domain.  This is vision.

Vision.

cheers
joe baptista

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>wrote:

>
> Le 21 juin 09 à 09:09, Ian Peter a écrit :
>
>  For those who want a quick primer on Pirate Party (like I did)
>>
>> Basic political position of the Swedish Pirates
>>
>> http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english
>>
>
> This might be fine for an NGO, but not for a political party. The point is
> that a political party is expected to have a vision on society as a whole.
> And a member of Parliament has to express positions and to act on different
> matters dealt with by the Parliament.
> I find stupid at the latest, and otherwise suspect, to state e.g. "The
> Pirate Party has no opinion on whether Sweden should or should not be a
> member of the European Union, (...)" or, when you don't explain why: "The
> proposed European Union constitution that France and the Netherlands voted
> against shall not be accepted, neither in its original form nor with
> cosmetic changes." In each country, there have been very different reasons
> why a majority of French, Dutch, and later Irish people said no to the
> Constitutional Treaty. What are exactly the ones supported by the PP? Those
> of the left, or those of the populists and extreme right wing?
> When the PP representative will have to vote on, say, EU immigration
> policy, or EU common agricultural policy, or labor policy, what will be his
> votes? Based on which rationale and reasons?
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
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/20090621/9cb1f7ef/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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:30:02 2009
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:30:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <1245630602.5910.45.camel@daniel-laptop>

When I read about Tauss' decision I was wondering if he left the social
democratic SPD because of too much pressure on his person due to the
accusations against him regarding the possession of child porn. Although
everyone is innocent until proven guilty (and in his case as a kind of
investigator in that online scene it is a special although not
uncomplicated situation anyway) his political career in the SPD seemed
to be over. Or do you think he will enter parliament again after the
next elections as a member of the Pirate Party? 

Best, 
Daniel


Am Samstag, den 20.06.2009, 23:36 +0200 schrieb Peter Dambier:
> There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
> 
> Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the pirates.
> 
> Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
> That is much earlier than we expected.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Peter and Karin
> 
> 

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

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


From Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Mon Jun 22 07:06:54 2009
From: Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Ben Wagner)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:06:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
Message-ID: <49B98E0F-B702-4172-9954-5C9858EBD45F@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>

The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to  
grow by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and  
surveillance is becoming increasingly blurred:

---

Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology

The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European  
telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated  
mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to  
examine the content of individual online communications on a massive  
scale.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090622/33c69402/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  Mon Jun 22 07:48:14 2009
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:48:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
In-Reply-To: <49B98E0F-B702-4172-9954-5C9858EBD45F@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
References: <49B98E0F-B702-4172-9954-5C9858EBD45F@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0906220448q7f0b4576qa5973a549d3d2aec@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All

Before we have a very long debate on internet governance/ control/
monitoring/ curtailing freedom of expression, etc, let's agree on something:
what we are dealing with here is primarily the issue of (unscrupulous)
companies willing to take money from wherever it comes. They provide a
service and/ or product and to them that is the end of the story. What the
client does with it is none of their business, they are legally selling a
service/ product. The product could be landmines or other armament, fuel,
loans, etc, all of which can be used to repress and oppress. As for "Western
technology", let's face, invariably, such expertise/ know-how/ products come
from the so-called "Western" companies.

So, rather than looking at this as an internet issue, let's look beyond.
Other players in Civil Society make it their business to denounce practices
deemed to be immoral, wrong, etc in a number of contexts - the environment,
animal rights, etc.

So, if the technology is being provided by Nokia and Siemens (Quote: "The
monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of
Siemens <http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=si>AG,
the German conglomerate, and
Nokia <http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=nok>Corp.,
the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome,
a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed."), get people to protest/
boycott/ write against Siemens and Nokia. Get people to write to editors of
newspapers etc.

However, do remember that commercial entities exist to make a profit. If I
sell guns and someone comes in and tells me he is looking for a gun to kill
himself or his neighbour, I would be in my right as a business to conclude
the sale. Rfusing to do business with the customer because of the eventual
outcome of the transaction is only something I might decide to consider.

So, having said that, if civil action makes a difference to their profit
margins AND SHAREHOLDER dividends, then we will have achieved something.
They - and others - will think twice in the future before taking on such
contratcs. I don't have any specific examples of where naming and shaming
has worked, but Halliburton shares have been plumetting ever since
disclosures were made about their activities in Iraq. Perhaps someone with a
finger on the financial pulse can contribute here.

Regards,

Rui



2009/6/22 Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>

> The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow
> by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is
> becoming increasingly blurred:
>
> ---
>
> *Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology *
>
> The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European
> telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated
> mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to
> examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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/20090622/cf878bbf/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 raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Mon Jun 22 12:44:15 2009
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (raquelgatto)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:44:15 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Call for Papers-  GigaNet 2009 - Deadline
 extended: July 15
In-Reply-To: <4a3f788654ebc_511c1555555881ac294@weasel3.tmail>
References: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail> <18EEE79913754418A874BAF6889AA0F8@Raquelnote> <4a3f788654ebc_511c1555555881ac294@weasel3.tmail>
Message-ID: <4a3fb4dfb2e0c_71951555555881ac13e@weasel14.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090622/74c50721/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 Jun 22 12:59:56 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
Message-ID: <990205.73945.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Yes we must all agree that in business and governance there is absolutely no room for discussion or even consideration of morality and social conscience.
 
What the hell?????

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 11:48 AM


Dear All

Before we have a very long debate on internet governance/ control/ monitoring/ curtailing freedom of expression, etc, let's agree on something: what we are dealing with here is primarily the issue of (unscrupulous) companies willing to take money from wherever it comes. They provide a service and/ or product and to them that is the end of the story. What the client does with it is none of their business, they are legally selling a service/ product. The product could be landmines or other armament, fuel, loans, etc, all of which can be used to repress and oppress. As for "Western technology", let's face, invariably, such expertise/ know-how/ products come from the so-called "Western" companies.

So, rather than looking at this as an internet issue, let's look beyond. Other players in Civil Society make it their business to denounce practices deemed to be immoral, wrong, etc in a number of contexts - the environment, animal rights, etc.

So, if the technology is being provided by Nokia and Siemens (Quote: "The monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome, a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed."), get people to protest/ boycott/ write against Siemens and Nokia. Get people to write to editors of newspapers etc. 

However, do remember that commercial entities exist to make a profit. If I sell guns and someone comes in and tells me he is looking for a gun to kill himself or his neighbour, I would be in my right as a business to conclude the sale. Rfusing to do business with the customer because of the eventual outcome of the transaction is only something I might decide to consider. 

So, having said that, if civil action makes a difference to their profit margins AND SHAREHOLDER dividends, then we will have achieved something. They - and others - will think twice in the future before taking on such contratcs. I don't have any specific examples of where naming and shaming has worked, but Halliburton shares have been plumetting ever since disclosures were made about their activities in Iraq. Perhaps someone with a finger on the financial pulse can contribute here.  

Regards,

Rui

  


2009/6/22 Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>



The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is becoming increasingly blurred:
 
---


Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology 


The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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

-----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/20090622/84552c5f/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  Mon Jun 22 13:27:57 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:27:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] EC on IG
In-Reply-To: <26692058.59040.1245687446516.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
References: <63658705-6305-4266-9185-BF57A0B19233@graduateinstitute.ch> <26692058.59040.1245687446516.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
Message-ID: <255EBEA7-8B92-4728-AA85-EAA8D55DE265@graduateinstitute.ch>

Jean-Louis,

Very happy to see you back here, hope all is well.

Alas, I cannot open the document.

With the sad election behind us, do you expect any changes in the  
hilarity, or more of the same?

Best,

Bill


On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:

>
> William Drake wrote :
>
> > So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are  
> invited to
> > chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the  
> adults in
> > the front. One big happy family, all in our respective roles and
> > responsibilities...
>
> Well said, Bill
>
> But there is another interesting "vision" of to-morrow IG by the  
> hilarious Mrs Redng (see attached document)
>
> Best regards
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
> > Message du 18/06/09 20:21
> > De : "William Drake"
> > A : "Governance List"
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [governance] EC on IG
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's a Communications from the EC today that may be of interest.
> >
> > Internet governance: the next steps
> > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf
> >
> > Two notable bits:
> >
> > First, the EC refers to the JPA as if it's ending and that's a done
> > deal. Whether that's due to private assurance, disregard for the
> > positions of various DC actors, strategic discourse, or whatever,  
> who
> > knows. In any event, so moving on, it's time to talk about IANA:
> >
> > "The indication by the US government in 2006 that the current
> > agreement should be the last
> > such agreement with ICANN was largely welcomed by the international
> > community
> > (including the EU). At the same time, the US government has
> > consistently indicated that it
> > will maintain effective control of the coordination of key global
> > naming and addressing
> > functions and this is likely to mean that the problem regarding the
> > ‘unilateral oversight’ of
> > such resources will remain unresolved."
> >
> > Second, multistakeholderism is a nice thing that should be
> > "encouraged" in discussion forums like the IGF. ICANN, in contrast,
> > involves "private-sector leadership," which "must be maintained."  
> And
> > public policy and ICANN's external accountability are for  
> governments
> > to deal with:
> >
> > "As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for
> > unilateral oversight in regard to ICANN and IANA need to be replaced
> > with an alternative mechanism to ensure that ICANN has multilateral
> > accountability."
> >
> > "At the same time, public policies for key global Internet resources
> > (especially those that require global coordination) need to be based
> > on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation."
> >
> > So unless I'm missing something, the civil society kids are  
> invited to
> > chat and enjoy in the back seat and leave the driving to the  
> adults in
> > the front. One big happy family, all in our respective roles and
> > responsibilities...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > PS: The EC also released a communication on the Internet of the  
> things.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <IG_EU Commission Position_Reding_May09.mht>

***********************************************************
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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jun 22 15:35:04 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:35:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch> <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <CBE5D289-A482-4349-8507-6CB02DA5308A@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Jun 21, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was  
> issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.

Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security  
of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership moved  
to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in  
Luxembourg.

Next up on the EC/French govt. threat list: the Object Naming  
Service.  But wait, GS1's global office is in Brussels. But wait,  
Verisign's in California...but but....

Doh!  Techno-nationalism is so confusing.

Head..spinning...must watch Homer...

Bill

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun 22 16:48:29 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:48:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <CBE5D289-A482-4349-8507-6CB02DA5308A@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>
 <CBE5D289-A482-4349-8507-6CB02DA5308A@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A82B2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

That was exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to be rude to our French colleague. ;-) 

> -----Original Message-----
> > The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was
> > issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
> 
> Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security
> of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership moved
> to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in
> Luxembourg.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Jun 22 17:27:48 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:27:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906221427g65e1284dnc860eeeae06db7c7@mail.gmail.com>

Several Caribbean countries do have bans on VOIP enshrined in their -still -
monopoly provider licenses and specifically interfere with and disrupt H.323
traffic.  Count Belize and Guyana among them. In fact, even the intervention
of the Government of Belize to secure a variation for a regional
education-related project did not succeed!

The most persuasive argument offered to the governments for the ban is loss
of revenue from the largely disreputable settlement regime of old.  Even the
large US carriers that were the biggest boosters have retired from that
particular field.  But our boys are still at it.  At least until the FCC cry
uncle!

Carlton Samuels

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>wrote:

>
> Le 21 juin 09 à 14:31, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>>> On the other
>>> hand, because they're proprietary, some fear that skype conversation
>>> might be listened to for (economic or other kind of) intelligence
>>> purpose.
>>>
>>
>> I don't get the connection. "Because the protocols are proprietary" they
>> might be wiretapped? Huh? Whether they are wiretapped or not would seem to
>> have nothing to do with the patent status of the codecs or protocols.
>>
>
> Wiretapped may not be the right word here. But the point is that since
> skype is proprietary, it is difficult to know how it operates, and in
> particular whether or not it allows interceptions of data. This fear is
> increased by the fact that skype uses the P2P technology, so one doesn't
> really know through which servers the data are transmitted.
> The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was issued in
> Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090622/a9728481/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Jun 22 17:56:36 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:56:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A82B2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <701af9f70906181538l483e6c91m8e2b87e52390b689@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A81DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A3B9F77.3010906@graduateinstitute.ch> <3796A167-AA54-40F5-9D98-170599602E66@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A824D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <7556EAAA-C123-4187-A027-A9CCC0C464D7@ras.eu.org> <CBE5D289-A482-4349-8507-6CB02DA5308A@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A82B2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B73C3FC7-8E09-4E91-B270-FE01B280A2FD@ras.eu.org>

How nice.. However, I don't see the direct relation between me and my  
thousands of colleagues here in France on the one hand, and the  
French government and the whole administration on the other hand.

Le 22 juin 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> That was exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to be rude  
> to our French colleague. ;-)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was
>>> issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
>>
>> Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security
>> of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership  
>> moved
>> to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in
>> Luxembourg.
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 23 01:36:03 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
Message-ID: <977886.13392.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Protectionism is a good thing.  As long as it follows the simple rules we have learned since the Roman eras.
 
Never use it to protect those in power, only to protect the welfare of the people in general not a specific group within a nation.
 
Never use it as a weapon to punish others (no nation is that bad ass)
 
Never call it something else.
 
When it fails, knock it off, quick like.

Poor French
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 8:48 PM


That was exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to be rude to our French colleague. ;-) 

> -----Original Message-----
> > The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was
> > issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
> 
> Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security
> of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership moved
> to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in
> Luxembourg.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090622/af2215b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jun 23 06:05:28 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:05:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
In-Reply-To: <977886.13392.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <977886.13392.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233EB1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

No protectionism or protectionist in history has ever abided by these rules, of course.

________________________________
From: Eric Dierker [cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:36 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP

Protectionism is a good thing.  As long as it follows the simple rules we have learned since the Roman eras.

Never use it to protect those in power, only to protect the welfare of the people in general not a specific group within a nation.

Never use it as a weapon to punish others (no nation is that bad ass)

Never call it something else.

When it fails, knock it off, quick like.
Poor French
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 8:48 PM

That was exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to be rude to our French colleague. ;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> > The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was
> > issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
>
> Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security
> of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership moved
> to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in
> Luxembourg.
>
____________________________________________________________
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/20090623/acecd188/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 07:43:31 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:43:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
In-Reply-To: <49B98E0F-B702-4172-9954-5C9858EBD45F@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
References: <49B98E0F-B702-4172-9954-5C9858EBD45F@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906230443t203a722fk12e13cfa882f6675@mail.gmail.com>

That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat its cake and having it. I
cannot unbderstand the madenning call for freedom of expression by the so
called Western countries and the sudden development of devices to stymie
free expression.

It is all the same business: third world nationalist governments are never
condoned by the West who in their place, prefer less power-base election
riggers and pilferers. See the red carpet given Western Leaders to the so
called third world "elected Leaders"

Iran understood how to deal with the west. Let them roost.

Aaron


On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>  The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow
> by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is
> becoming increasingly blurred:
>
> ---
>
>
> *Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology *
>
>
> The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European
> telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated
> mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to
> examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
>
>
>  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090623/a4ebebd7/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 Jun 23 10:07:31 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
Message-ID: <937443.9059.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Dear good Sir,
 
I am most intrigued by your last line. You use the past tense term "understood" instead of a more conspicuous present tense. Perhaps this was a Freudian slip, missed grammar,,, or better yet -- is there something you could share with us regarding the current regime in Iran being relegated to history at this time?
 
Has open and unstoppable Internet information flow toppled the government there??  Is it possible that much like the USSR, the information received has created  a luminare' into an unsustainable facade of governance?  Is the "west" again just too slow to see the success of free information and speech?
 
Is it true that lists such as this have slowly eroded the pillars of ignorance and helped to shed the veil of deceit?

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:43 AM



That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat its cake and having it. I cannot unbderstand the madenning call for freedom of expression by the so called Western countries and the sudden development of devices to stymie free expression.
 
It is all the same business: third world nationalist governments are never condoned by the West who in their place, prefer less power-base election riggers and pilferers. See the red carpet given Western Leaders to the so called third world "elected Leaders"
 
Iran understood how to deal with the west. Let them roost.
 
Aaron 

 
On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote: 


The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is becoming increasingly blurred:
 
---

 
Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology 

 
The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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





-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70 
-----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/20090623/db76d1ec/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 Jun 23 11:47:15 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
Message-ID: <636630.75544.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>



Hmmm, I reckon that is why.  I mean the "why -- protectionism is lame and transparently self serving to those who would rather maintain a status quo of power rather than serve them that they are supposed to serve"
 
More specifically when we impede the free and natural evolution of the spread of knowledge, through communication, we create a false truth, no matter what is really true.  If the premises that we use for governance are not disclosed, examined and communicated then it is not governance but dictation. It becomes random and chance since it clearly is not based on reason. 
 
But we should be thankful that France is moderate in their approach to curtailing methods of information reaching the unwashed masses. It could be as their old "colonial" remnants of Indo China as with this fine lawyer;
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_394301.html
 
It should be noted that in Vietnam the battle for Doi Moi* is raging in HCMC, still AKA Saigon, and it is hardly economic, it is about information. However in all fairness, unlike the East of the Middle East and the West of Berlin, this is a more civilized revolution of information and the good people take a less dramatic and more stoic view of change.
 
* For insight on responsible (yet so slow) change;
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/vietnam.htm#DOIMOI
 
Note also the first par. on Internet Governancein the MOU;
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
participation and free flow of info is paramount.

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 10:05 AM



#yiv1702206824 #yiv1172012214 #yiv435845346 P {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;MARGIN-BOTTOM:0px;}


No protectionism or protectionist in history has ever abided by these rules, of course. 
 


From: Eric Dierker [cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:36 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP








Protectionism is a good thing.  As long as it follows the simple rules we have learned since the Roman eras.
 
Never use it to protect those in power, only to protect the welfare of the people in general not a specific group within a nation.
 
Never use it as a weapon to punish others (no nation is that bad ass)
 
Never call it something else.
 
When it fails, knock it off, quick like.

Poor French
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: RE: [governance] ISPs, PTA lock horns over illegal VoIP
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 8:48 PM


That was exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to be rude to our French colleague. ;-) 

> -----Original Message-----
> > The French ban on skype in universities and research centers was
> > issued in Sept. 2005. Right after it was bought by Ebay.
> 
> Aha. When it was European-owned, there was no threat to the security
> of French universities and research centers.  But when ownership moved
> to California, there was a threat. Even though Skype's HQ remains in
> Luxembourg.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090623/1d123288/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 Jun 23 12:41:19 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:41:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
In-Reply-To: <937443.9059.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <937443.9059.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906230941v1ded78b7y915eb641ffe263d9@mail.gmail.com>

FWIW, there are truly more persuasive views about what's happening in Iran
than what CNN is reporting.  For example, isn't is passing strange that a
fella who was a hardline Prime Minister back in the day is now being
celebrated as a leading liberal? What happened on the "road to Damascus"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak05.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/van-troostwijk1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06222009.html

Hmmmmmm.........the numbers are not adding up.

We know what happens when our august leaders promote "free and fair
elections" in the periphery that reject their preferred candidates/parties.
See Hamas, for example.

Something is afoot in Iran.  What we know for sure is that CNN, the NYT and
WP aren't telling the whole story.

Carlton Samuels

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Eric Dierker
<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>  Dear good Sir,
>
> I am most intrigued by your last line. You use the past tense term
> "understood" instead of a more conspicuous present tense. Perhaps this was a
> Freudian slip, missed grammar,,, or better yet -- is there something you
> could share with us regarding the current regime in Iran being relegated to
> history at this time?
>
> Has open and unstoppable Internet information flow toppled the government
> there??  Is it possible that much like the USSR, the information received
> has created  a luminare' into an unsustainable facade of governance?  Is the
> "west" again just too slow to see the success of free information and
> speech?
>
> Is it true that lists such as this have slowly eroded the pillars of
> ignorance and helped to shed the veil of deceit?
>
> --- On *Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western
> Technology
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:43 AM
>
>
>  That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat its cake and having it. I
> cannot unbderstand the madenning call for freedom of expression by the so
> called Western countries and the sudden development of devices to stymie
> free expression.
>
> It is all the same business: third world nationalist governments are never
> condoned by the West who in their place, prefer less power-base election
> riggers and pilferers. See the red carpet given Western Leaders to the so
> called third world "elected Leaders"
>
> Iran understood how to deal with the west. Let them roost.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>>
> wrote:
>>
>>  The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to
>> grow by day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance
>> is becoming increasingly blurred:
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>> *Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology *
>>
>>
>> The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European
>> telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated
>> mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to
>> examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
>>
>>
>>  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>
> -----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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20090623/4263f7b3/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 peter at peter-dambier.de  Tue Jun 23 13:58:05 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:58:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pirates enter german government
In-Reply-To: <1245630602.5910.45.camel@daniel-laptop>
References: <a6bc8cb30906171011n63cffe80ica77ddb0f077708a@mail.gmail.com>	 <b1161f110906171456na28b174yc78e3fc5ac977d60@mail.gmail.com>	 <874c02a20906171714t3779606atee614d0829f111e0@mail.gmail.com>	 <67248.907.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	 <4A39A44B.6030902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	 <441605.48126.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	 <20090619221739.AD320CF04A@smtp3.electricembers.net>	 <4A3D5647.7070302@peter-dambier.de> <1245630602.5910.45.camel@daniel-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A4117AD.20807@peter-dambier.de>

Our list of candidates for seats in parliament has already been voted
about and has been passed to the election bureau. He is not on that list.

I think it has been a free ride for for the next two month only but it
is giving us a big boost. We see it in the members count and I hope we
will see it in the votes for us too.

Tauss has been mobbed by his party. Finding an old suitcase whose
contents might not have been outlawed when that suitcase was touched
last time, adds just to this mobbing. The party wants to do things
against the law but Tauss said no. So they got rid of him.

I reminds me of FDP and Moelleman except Tauss got a suitcase not
an umbrella.

The accusations about child porn are nonsense.

Von der Layen has shown child porn in public and police showed no
interest. Both cases have nothing to do with porn but with ther
work.

If I understand him correctly his heart is SPD and that will never
change. He wants to not let 1933 happen again. That is why he had
to do something drastic.

The pirates do allow you to be member of another party too. That is
no problem with us. Seen from our position his brain is 100% pirate
so he is a natural pirate.

Censoring plays an important role to destabilise a democracy so it
is only natural he come to us. But his future?
I could imagine he is one of the first to emigrate.

Kind regards
Peter

Daniel Oppermann wrote:
> When I read about Tauss' decision I was wondering if he left the social
> democratic SPD because of too much pressure on his person due to the
> accusations against him regarding the possession of child porn. Although
> everyone is innocent until proven guilty (and in his case as a kind of
> investigator in that online scene it is a special although not
> uncomplicated situation anyway) his political career in the SPD seemed
> to be over. Or do you think he will enter parliament again after the
> next elections as a member of the Pirate Party? 
> 
> Best, 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> Am Samstag, den 20.06.2009, 23:36 +0200 schrieb Peter Dambier:
>> There are more people afraid of censoring in germany.
>>
>> Joerg Tauss from the social democrats SPD left his party to join the pirates.
>>
>> Now the Pirates have 1 seat in the federal government in Berlin.
>> That is much earlier than we expected.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Peter and Karin
>>
>>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 23 18:08:23 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
Message-ID: <355977.38524.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Dang Carlton,
 
Good point about the rags we read. I was so busy at; http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Obama-strongly-condemns-Iran-says-not-interfering-/articleshow/4694493.cms
And; http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/  getting my straight scoop I forgot to check up on these more "important" reports.
 
What is clear and important to this list is that; once informed, populations do not go back int the bottle like a good genie.  Internet governance must realize its' important role and take responsibility accordingly.  Just because we do not have a king or congress for world wide opinions does not mean it is not legitimate.
 

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
Cc: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "Nyangkwe Agien Aaron" <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:01 PM


Carlton and all,

  The "Road to Damascus" has been straightened and paved.  That's
what has happened.  The whole story is not yet known, and may never
be accurately known.  But it is nearly certain that many opinions in
times to come will be put forth.  All will claim legitimacy, and few, if

any will actually have it.

  What I see in Iran from our own sources is that there is yet another
power struggle amongst the clerics in Iran all vying for more power
and doing so in the name of some precept that is popular or is being
marketed as should be popular.  The better question is what role
should the west play, if any?  So far President Obama has played this
situation fairly well, yet our own technology is now compromised.
Perhaps such is for the better, for now, but for later such may come
back to bite us.  To me the events in Iran remain unclear, but
demonstrate
that our founding fathers were very wise in the ideal of separating
church
and state.

Carlton Samuels wrote:

> FWIW, there are truly more persuasive views about what's happening in
> Iran than what CNN is reporting.  For example, isn't is passing
> strange that a fella who was a hardline Prime Minister back in the day
> is now being celebrated as a leading liberal? What happened on the
> "road to Damascus"?
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak05.html
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/van-troostwijk1.html
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06222009.html
>
> Hmmmmmm.........the numbers are not adding up.
>
> We know what happens when our august leaders promote "free and fair
> elections" in the periphery that reject their preferred
> candidates/parties.  See Hamas, for example.
>
> Something is afoot in Iran.  What we know for sure is that CNN, the
> NYT and WP aren't telling the whole story.
>
> Carlton Samuels
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Eric
> Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
       Dear good Sir, I am most intrigued by your last line. You
       use the past tense term "understood" instead of a more
       conspicuous present tense. Perhaps this was a Freudian slip,
       missed grammar,,, or better yet -- is there something you
       could share with us regarding the current regime in Iran
       being relegated to history at this time? Has open and
       unstoppable Internet information flow toppled the government
       there??  Is it possible that much like the USSR, the
       information received has created  a luminare' into an
       unsustainable facade of governance?  Is the "west" again
       just too slow to see the success of free information and
       speech? Is it true that lists such as this have slowly
       eroded the pillars of ignorance and helped to shed the veil
       of deceit?

       --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron
       <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:


            From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron
            <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
            Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying
            Aided By Western TechnologyTo:
            governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner"
            <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
            Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:43 AM
             That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat
            its cake and having it. I cannot unbderstand the
            madenning call for freedom of expression by the so
            called Western countries and the sudden
            development of devices to stymie free
            expression. It is all the same business: third
            world nationalist governments are never condoned
            by the West who in their place, prefer less
            power-base election riggers and pilferers. See the
            red carpet given Western Leaders to the so called
            third world "elected Leaders" Iran understood how
            to deal with the west. Let them roost. Aaron
             On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
            wrote:

                 The list of DPI-using countries which
                 censor their populace seems to grow by
                 day. It also seems that the line between
                 censorship and surveillance is becoming
                 increasingly blurred: --- Iran's Web
                 Spying Aided By Western Technology  The
                 Iranian regime has developed, with the
                 assistance of European
                 telecommunications companies, one of the
                 world's most sophisticated mechanisms
                 for controlling and censoring the
                 Internet, allowing it to examine the
                 content of individual online
                 communications on a massive
                 scale. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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






            --
            Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
            Journalist-OutCome Mapper
            Special Assistant The President
            ASAFE
            P.O.Box 5213
            Douala-Cameroon

            Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
            Fax.. 237 3342 29 70 -----Inline Attachment
            Follows-----
             ____________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Regards,

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/20090623/2798c388/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  Thu Jun 25 09:54:33 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:54:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its
 president?
Message-ID: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>

*ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president?*

Source: CongressDaily<http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hbp_20090619_9406.php>
06/19/2009<http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hbp_20090619_9406.php>

Former Homeland Security Department National Cybersecurity Center Director
Rod Beckstrom could become the new president and CEO of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

ICANN a nonprofit group based in California oversees sixty to seventy
percent of the Internet address system. ICANN is a contractor to the
Department of Commerce.

Beckstrom, who served as the Director of the National Cybersecurity Center
(NCSC) in 2008 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was seen
trolling the ICANN meeting in Sydney wearing an ICANN staff badge.

I predict his appointment and association with the DHS will result in
further erosion of market share for ICANN. Since ICANN was formed in 1998
they have lost Forty percent market share in the provisioning of root domain
name service (DNS). The first country to jump ship was China.

The Chinese Ministry of Information Industry
�л����񹲺͹���Ϣ��ҵ��<http://www.mii.gov.cn/>(MII) built it��s own addressing
infrastructure in 2000. The Chinese no
longer rely on the U.S. government for domain resolution. In China users can
surf the Internet in Chinese.

If you happen to be in China you can visit Peking University using their
Chinese character domain name
������ѧ.�й�<http://%e5%8c%97%e4%ba%ac%e5%a4%a7%e5%ad%a6.%e4%b8%ad%e5%9b%bd/>like
millions of other Chinese do. Chinese domains will not work for users
who��s Internet is under U.S. Government control.

Other countries are also following the China lead including Russia and
India. Turkey left in 2005.

*EOL*

*Editors note: *If you want to test Chinese character domains, or even visit
the Kremlin in Moscow using Russian language domains �C
���֧٧ڧէ֧ߧ�.����<http://%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%b7%d0%b8%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d1%82.%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b3/>�C
you can visit the Cesidian
Root <http://www.cesidianroot.net/> and use their DNS to surf. Instructions
are available under the heading ��Changing TCP/IP configuration��.



-- 
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/20090625/46834aab/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 tvest at eyeconomics.com  Thu Jun 25 10:44:13 2009
From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (tvest at eyeconomics.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:44:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 its president?
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D5750A00-2DCF-46AC-A832-882BEFBC876D@eyeconomics.com>

For the curious, here is the full text of the article published by  
National Journal:

National Journal's CongressDaily

June 19, 2009 Friday
PM Edition

ICANN Might Name Former Cybersecurity Boss

LENGTH: 166 words

Technology. Former Homeland Security Department National Cybersecurity  
Center Director Rod Beckstrom could become the new president and CEO  
of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a  
nonprofit group that oversees the Internet address system. Paul  
Twomey, who has held the position for six years, announced his  
departure in March. Since then, the group has faced scrutiny on  
Capitol Hill as it prepares to end its formal relationship with the  
Commerce Department in September. Lawmakers and industry stakeholders  
have raised concerns about ICANN's transparency, accountability,  
budget processes and stakeholder relationships. ICANN Vice President  
Paul Levins would not confirm Beckstrom's selection but said a  
"leading candidate" had been chosen and initial contract discussions  
were under way. The individual will meet with ICANN's board at the  
organization's meeting in Sydney, Australia, next week. The board  
expects to approve the CEO when it convenes in a week, Levins said.

On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president?
>
> Source: CongressDaily 06/19/2009
>
> Former Homeland Security Department National Cybersecurity Center  
> Director Rod Beckstrom could become the new president and CEO of the  
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
>
> ICANN a nonprofit group based in California oversees sixty to  
> seventy percent of the Internet address system. ICANN is a  
> contractor to the Department of Commerce.
>
> Beckstrom, who served as the Director of the National Cybersecurity  
> Center (NCSC) in 2008 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security  
> (DHS), was seen trolling the ICANN meeting in Sydney wearing an  
> ICANN staff badge.
>
> I predict his appointment and association with the DHS will result  
> in further erosion of market share for ICANN. Since ICANN was formed  
> in 1998 they have lost Forty percent market share in the  
> provisioning of root domain name service (DNS). The first country to  
> jump ship was China.
>
> The Chinese Ministry of Information Industry 中华人民共和国信息产业部  
> (MII) built it’s own addressing infrastructure in 2000. The Chinese  
> no longer rely on the U.S. government for domain resolution. In  
> China users can surf the Internet in Chinese.
>
> If you happen to be in China you can visit Peking University using  
> their Chinese character domain name 北京大学.中国 like millions of  
> other Chinese do. Chinese domains will not work for users who’s  
> Internet is under U.S. Government control.
>
> Other countries are also following the China lead including Russia  
> and India. Turkey left in 2005.
>
> EOL
>
> Editors note: If you want to test Chinese character domains, or even  
> visit the Kremlin in Moscow using Russian language domains –  
> президент.орг – you can visit the Cesidian Root and use  
> their DNS to surf. Instructions are available under the heading  
> “Changing TCP/IP configuration”.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe Baptista
>
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,  
> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
>     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>
> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu Jun 25 11:26:03 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:26:03 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30906250824j4f3aa610vebec1e469f44bf58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <696679.2535.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30906250824j4f3aa610vebec1e469f44bf58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906250826u653c26e8u521a9741a463588a@mail.gmail.com>

Eric

Name calling are contextual and were just aimed at beefing up points.
I agree that these are trying times. Such moments could be well
handled by the preparedness to call a spade, a spade. If not, let us
prepare for another 1979 revolution some where else.

If we want a safer world, there should be a redefinition of what
"national interest" is. It is because of "national interest" that arms
are sold to warlords in somalia (resulting to the Darfur) or in the
Congo and else where.It is for "national interest" that some American
conglomerates will forego a project that can benefit the population
(in the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline project) and instead offer bribes to
government officials knowing that these very officials wilm stash the
loot in havens in the West. The list is long. You can also ask why
"Western" leaders are very luke warm with leaders of third world
countries that are very popular in their countries- to say it
properly, who have a political base like say Barack Obama, Gordon
Brown, or Nocolas Sarkozy?.

The reason is simple: by patronizing leaders without a political base
in these countries, they stand the chances of obtaining free contracts
or seeing state monies being looted and channelled to them to finance
their election campaigns. Presidential candidates in France will
campaign on bicycles if African kleptocrats were to close their
wallets. The business empire of De Gaulle's country will crash like a
pile of cards if real competition were set up in awarding contracts in
French speaking African countries. See how Tony Blair wanted to eat
Mugabe raw. The sin of the octogenarian in Harare was that he engaged
in reforms (agreed during the Lancaster House Accords) that enabled
equitable distribution of lands. Mugabe who was decorated 'Master of
the British Empire-MBE- soon became a villain that suddenly ruined
Zimbabwe, ushering in record breaking inflation. I have googled for
over a year now and I am yet to find a country in the world that ever
approached such astronomic inflation rate and has not exploded. LET US
BE SERIOUS!!!

Thank God, Eric, the Internet is there. It enables people to get the
other side of the story. That is why people no more rely on BBC and
junior Pravda CNN- yes the channel created by Turner is no better than
the Soviet Pravda.

Cheers and let the debate foe a more kinder and safe world flow.

Aaron

On 6/25/09, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> May I go public with your comments to bring more light on this subject.  I
> think you are raising the right questions that we should be forcing into
> peoples faces right now.  We should not let this moment pass without keeping
> your issues in the forefront of peoples' minds.
>
> Just respond in public if that is alright with you.  Leave the name calling
> and hate statements intact for emphasis on the emotional aspects that are
> likewise important.
>
> I send you my good intentions in this time of trial of our charactar.
>
> Namaste'
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 8:36 PM
>
>
> Not wonderful Eric!!
>
> Do you blame the rascals to whom a sane person places at their disposal,
> destructive devices that they use to cause or the sane person for placing
> such devices at their disposal.
>
> The "West" cannot eat its cake and have it.
> You said:
> "We should advance all knowledge and techniques that advance common
> understanding".That I agree with you but can such knowledge that can cause
> destruction to humanity be placed at the disposal of any rogue as Western
> Companies are doing?
>
> The West knew that by selling the soft ware to Iran, the Mullahs will use it
> to stiffle dissent yet they did to turn around skirmishing.
>
> I can go on and on. Being "intellectual" on this forum as you are trying do
> is doing nothing to stop a worsening situation. You are just about doiung it
> the Donald Rumsfeld way or can I say the GOEBELLS GOERRINGS, since you know
> nothing American?,
>
> Cheers
>
> Aaron,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wonderful,
>
> Me thinks the man doth protest too much.
>
> We should advance all knowledge and techniques that advance common
> understanding.
> Stop to think about what this big bad spying technology is forcing the
> Mullahs to finally come to grips with.
>
> Now the intermediaries cannot deny the knowledge flow in both directions.
> We must keep in mind that while an ignorant populace is bad -- an ignorant
> tyrant is worse.
>
> I played with your obvious tense issue as a segway to the point. I cannot
> even speak American Baseballese.
>
> Because you are here, I consider you a friend.
>
> Of course anything I write may be made public.
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 4:35 PM
>
>
>
> Eric Dear Bad Sir
>
> You can narrow the understanding of my posting to suit your whimps and
> caprices. That is your sur cup of tea.
>
> The time of cowing people out is past. The macro-understanding of my piece
> is that the so called "West" (Obama is understanding this better than some
> of you hawkish fellas) has for long placed its interest ahead of humanism.
> The advent of Internet has changed everything poor Eric. Even rogue states
> too that are protected by the West are using apparatus deviced by the West
> to "cow" down the West. The French say, "c'est de bonne guerre". When the
> gang leader is himself robbed, he goes havoc!!
>
> Mugabe became the "enfant gâté" just after Lancaster because the "West"
> wanted to crush the nationalist "Joshua Nkomo" who was tormented to death.
> All the noise by Western media about Mugabe's now is nonsense. The man's
> mafeassance existed long ago but the West who even decorated him with an MBE
> kept mute. When suddenly Mugabe turned around and asked but: "but what about
> the land reform?", he suddenly becomes a blood thirsty tyrant who has
> rendered Zimbawabwe broke to the West.
>
> Eric, it is not by trying to destroy the thermometer that an illness is
> cured. Instead of venting your splean at the Western companies (how can you
> that, as your life depend on such shoddy deals) that sold the technology to
> Iran (the very West that sold the technology to develop nuclear weapons to
> the Ayatollah state) you are opening your fangs to waffle things about some
> grammatical errors by me.
>
> One former US Speaker, Tip O'Neal once told Ronald Reagan that "it was a sin
> for America to have you as President". You know what, Reagan just told him,
> "Mr Speaker, if you are short of ideas to move America forward, you just
> shut up"
>
> GOT THAT ERIC; Dear Bad Sir
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear good Sir,
>
> I am most intrigued by your last line. You use the past tense term
> "understood" instead of a more conspicuous present tense. Perhaps this was a
> Freudian slip, missed grammar,,, or better yet -- is there something you
> could share with us regarding the current regime in Iran being relegated to
> history at this time?
>
> Has open and unstoppable Internet information flow toppled the government
> there??  Is it possible that much like the USSR, the information received
> has created  a luminare' into an unsustainable facade of governance?  Is the
> "west" again just too slow to see the success of free information and
> speech?
>
> Is it true that lists such as this have slowly eroded the pillars of
> ignorance and helped to shed the veil of deceit?
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:43 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat its cake and having it. I
> cannot unbderstand the madenning call for freedom of expression by the so
> called Western countries and the sudden development of devices to stymie
> free expression.
>
> It is all the same business: third world nationalist governments are never
> condoned by the West who in their place, prefer less power-base election
> riggers and pilferers. See the red carpet given Western Leaders to the so
> called third world "elected Leaders"
>
> Iran understood how to deal with the west. Let them roost.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>
> The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow by
> day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is
> becoming increasingly blurred:
>
> ---
>
>
> Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
>
>
> The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European
> telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated
> mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to
> examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
>
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
> -----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
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70



-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Jun 25 12:30:58 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:30:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 its president?
In-Reply-To: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
09:54:33 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org> 
writes
>ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president

Old news, this broke on the 13th.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Thu Jun 25 12:37:53 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:37:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its
In-Reply-To: <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>
References: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
	 <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906250937w5e32d783j4a83fe83b11e3f89@mail.gmail.com>

old news for us - new news for other ;)

cheers
joe baptista

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 09:54:33 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
> writes
>
>> ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president
>>
>
> Old news, this broke on the 13th.
> --
> 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
>



-- 
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/20090625/23d10027/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 Jun 25 14:06:56 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western
 Technology/Pirate Bay
Message-ID: <410159.52919.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thank you Aaron for not giving up and not going quietly.
 
I am sure that on many ocassions you been so depressed and angry that you have screemed alone in the dark. I suggest you just keep on screaming here.  Follow Mr. Williams lead and just keep at it and plugging away. You will not get thanks or even any recognition, but they will listen. Even though they ignore or censor.
 
Here is more that substantiates your cry:
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=sa&id=1692
 
This at first seems far fetched and from a bad source -- but on reading it makes some sense;
http://gawker.com/5294026/is-the-associated-press-aiding-iranian-censorship
AP report;
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16023/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=V0z1oYnB
Seems like our IP megalomaniacs and multinational corps would shut down an essential file sharing that helps spread the word. Pirate/Persian Bay revisited ???
 
 
America is a huge country, we are not easily lumped into the categories of Evil that you attribute to each and every one of us.  We probably always burn the candle at both ends;
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009624225744811593.html
 
But even from BBC we see hope -- And believe me he could not do this if not for the pressure from the light of the Internet;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118783.stm
 


--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
To: "WSIS Internet Governance Caucus" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 3:26 PM


Eric

Name calling are contextual and were just aimed at beefing up points.
I agree that these are trying times. Such moments could be well
handled by the preparedness to call a spade, a spade. If not, let us
prepare for another 1979 revolution some where else.

If we want a safer world, there should be a redefinition of what
"national interest" is. It is because of "national interest" that arms
are sold to warlords in somalia (resulting to the Darfur) or in the
Congo and else where.It is for "national interest" that some American
conglomerates will forego a project that can benefit the population
(in the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline project) and instead offer bribes to
government officials knowing that these very officials wilm stash the
loot in havens in the West. The list is long. You can also ask why
"Western" leaders are very luke warm with leaders of third world
countries that are very popular in their countries- to say it
properly, who have a political base like say Barack Obama, Gordon
Brown, or Nocolas Sarkozy?.

The reason is simple: by patronizing leaders without a political base
in these countries, they stand the chances of obtaining free contracts
or seeing state monies being looted and channelled to them to finance
their election campaigns. Presidential candidates in France will
campaign on bicycles if African kleptocrats were to close their
wallets. The business empire of De Gaulle's country will crash like a
pile of cards if real competition were set up in awarding contracts in
French speaking African countries. See how Tony Blair wanted to eat
Mugabe raw. The sin of the octogenarian in Harare was that he engaged
in reforms (agreed during the Lancaster House Accords) that enabled
equitable distribution of lands. Mugabe who was decorated 'Master of
the British Empire-MBE- soon became a villain that suddenly ruined
Zimbabwe, ushering in record breaking inflation. I have googled for
over a year now and I am yet to find a country in the world that ever
approached such astronomic inflation rate and has not exploded. LET US
BE SERIOUS!!!

Thank God, Eric, the Internet is there. It enables people to get the
other side of the story. That is why people no more rely on BBC and
junior Pravda CNN- yes the channel created by Turner is no better than
the Soviet Pravda.

Cheers and let the debate foe a more kinder and safe world flow.

Aaron

On 6/25/09, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> May I go public with your comments to bring more light on this subject.  I
> think you are raising the right questions that we should be forcing into
> peoples faces right now.  We should not let this moment pass without keeping
> your issues in the forefront of peoples' minds.
>
> Just respond in public if that is alright with you.  Leave the name calling
> and hate statements intact for emphasis on the emotional aspects that are
> likewise important.
>
> I send you my good intentions in this time of trial of our charactar.
>
> Namaste'
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 8:36 PM
>
>
> Not wonderful Eric!!
>
> Do you blame the rascals to whom a sane person places at their disposal,
> destructive devices that they use to cause or the sane person for placing
> such devices at their disposal.
>
> The "West" cannot eat its cake and have it.
> You said:
> "We should advance all knowledge and techniques that advance common
> understanding".That I agree with you but can such knowledge that can cause
> destruction to humanity be placed at the disposal of any rogue as Western
> Companies are doing?
>
> The West knew that by selling the soft ware to Iran, the Mullahs will use it
> to stiffle dissent yet they did to turn around skirmishing.
>
> I can go on and on. Being "intellectual" on this forum as you are trying do
> is doing nothing to stop a worsening situation. You are just about doiung it
> the Donald Rumsfeld way or can I say the GOEBELLS GOERRINGS, since you know
> nothing American?,
>
> Cheers
>
> Aaron,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wonderful,
>
> Me thinks the man doth protest too much.
>
> We should advance all knowledge and techniques that advance common
> understanding.
> Stop to think about what this big bad spying technology is forcing the
> Mullahs to finally come to grips with.
>
> Now the intermediaries cannot deny the knowledge flow in both directions.
> We must keep in mind that while an ignorant populace is bad -- an ignorant
> tyrant is worse.
>
> I played with your obvious tense issue as a segway to the point. I cannot
> even speak American Baseballese.
>
> Because you are here, I consider you a friend.
>
> Of course anything I write may be made public.
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 4:35 PM
>
>
>
> Eric Dear Bad Sir
>
> You can narrow the understanding of my posting to suit your whimps and
> caprices. That is your sur cup of tea.
>
> The time of cowing people out is past. The macro-understanding of my piece
> is that the so called "West" (Obama is understanding this better than some
> of you hawkish fellas) has for long placed its interest ahead of humanism.
> The advent of Internet has changed everything poor Eric. Even rogue states
> too that are protected by the West are using apparatus deviced by the West
> to "cow" down the West. The French say, "c'est de bonne guerre". When the
> gang leader is himself robbed, he goes havoc!!
>
> Mugabe became the "enfant gâté" just after Lancaster because the "West"
> wanted to crush the nationalist "Joshua Nkomo" who was tormented to death.
> All the noise by Western media about Mugabe's now is nonsense. The man's
> mafeassance existed long ago but the West who even decorated him with an MBE
> kept mute. When suddenly Mugabe turned around and asked but: "but what about
> the land reform?", he suddenly becomes a blood thirsty tyrant who has
> rendered Zimbawabwe broke to the West.
>
> Eric, it is not by trying to destroy the thermometer that an illness is
> cured. Instead of venting your splean at the Western companies (how can you
> that, as your life depend on such shoddy deals) that sold the technology to
> Iran (the very West that sold the technology to develop nuclear weapons to
> the Ayatollah state) you are opening your fangs to waffle things about some
> grammatical errors by me.
>
> One former US Speaker, Tip O'Neal once told Ronald Reagan that "it was a sin
> for America to have you as President". You know what, Reagan just told him,
> "Mr Speaker, if you are short of ideas to move America forward, you just
> shut up"
>
> GOT THAT ERIC; Dear Bad Sir
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear good Sir,
>
> I am most intrigued by your last line. You use the past tense term
> "understood" instead of a more conspicuous present tense. Perhaps this was a
> Freudian slip, missed grammar,,, or better yet -- is there something you
> could share with us regarding the current regime in Iran being relegated to
> history at this time?
>
> Has open and unstoppable Internet information flow toppled the government
> there??  Is it possible that much like the USSR, the information received
> has created  a luminare' into an unsustainable facade of governance?  Is the
> "west" again just too slow to see the success of free information and
> speech?
>
> Is it true that lists such as this have slowly eroded the pillars of
> ignorance and helped to shed the veil of deceit?
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSJ: Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ben Wagner" <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:43 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is the "mighty West", always trying to eat its cake and having it. I
> cannot unbderstand the madenning call for freedom of expression by the so
> called Western countries and the sudden development of devices to stymie
> free expression.
>
> It is all the same business: third world nationalist governments are never
> condoned by the West who in their place, prefer less power-base election
> riggers and pilferers. See the red carpet given Western Leaders to the so
> called third world "elected Leaders"
>
> Iran understood how to deal with the west. Let them roost.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 6/22/09, Ben Wagner <Ben at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>
> The list of DPI-using countries which censor their populace seems to grow by
> day. It also seems that the line between censorship and surveillance is
> becoming increasingly blurred:
>
> ---
>
>
> Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology
>
>
> The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European
> telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated
> mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to
> examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
>
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
> -----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
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> Special Assistant The President
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
>
> Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70



-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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/20090625/70e3baa3/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 Jun 25 14:20:08 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 its president?
Message-ID: <213639.86281.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Why did you post this?  It goes to show/prove/enlighten us how?

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:


From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 4:30 PM


In message <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571 at mail.gmail.com>, at 09:54:33 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org> writes
> ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president

Old news, this broke on the 13th.
-- 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/20090625/b3d66984/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 Jun 25 14:35:58 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
Message-ID: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Here is some new news for Roland that internetpolicyagency.com choses not to comment on:  "ICANN makes no formal News Release or Statement officially on Cybersecurity guru being named its president in order to save the contract with the DoC"
 
We also note that a fella by the name of Ram is now heading the infamously impotent SSAC at ICANN and that he has more conflicts than an NFL line of scrimmage.  That to date no recommendations have come out of ICANN or the SSAC after signing a cool security contract involving the largest registry/registrar in the world. That there is currently no policing provisions built into ICANNs many MOUs or subcontracts.  That currently no 3rd party has rights under any of the provisions coming from ICANN.
 
Of particular interest is that both Ram and Roland put forth the point of view that Governance Regulation is innapplicable to the Internet unless there are provisions specifically mentioned within the regulation naming application to the internet.  It is presumed they use this "legalistic loophole" to guide clients around regulation, thereby creating a whole cottage industry of security avoidance. 

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss itspresident?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "2nd address Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr at gmail.com>
Cc: "ICANN SSAC" <ssac-liaison at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ICANN SSAC" <ssac at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 6:20 PM


Dr. Joe and all,

  Yes this is now old news, and even Congress Daily was a bit
behind the curve.  That said, in my opinion if ICANN were to
"Select" this person perhaps some security improvment that
are much needed would at some point be implimented.  Certainly
the SSAC is not up to the task currently.

Joe Baptista wrote:

>
>
> ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president?
>
> Source: CongressDaily06/19/2009
>
> Former Homeland Security Department National Cybersecurity Center
> Director Rod Beckstrom could become the new president and CEO of the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
>
> ICANN a nonprofit group based in California oversees sixty to seventy
> percent of the Internet address system. ICANN is a contractor to the
> Department of Commerce.
>
> Beckstrom, who served as the Director of the National Cybersecurity
> Center (NCSC) in 2008 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
> (DHS), was seen trolling the ICANN meeting in Sydney wearing an ICANN
> staff badge.
>
> I predict his appointment and association with the DHS will result in
> further erosion of market share for ICANN. Since ICANN was formed in
> 1998 they have lost Forty percent market share in the provisioning of
> root domain name service (DNS). The first country to jump ship was
> China.
>
> The Chinese Ministry of Information Industry ÖлªÈËÃñ¹²ºÍ¹úÐÅÏ¢²úÒµ²¿
> (MII) built it&rsquo;s own addressing infrastructure in 2000. The
> Chinese no longer rely on the U.S. government for domain resolution.
> In China users can surf the Internet in Chinese.
>
> If you happen to be in China you can visit Peking University using
> their Chinese character domain name ±±¾©´óѧ.Öйú like millions of
> other Chinese do. Chinese domains will not work for users who&rsquo;s
> Internet is under U.S. Government control.
>
> Other countries are also following the China lead including Russia and
> India. Turkey left in 2005.
>
> EOL
>
> Editors note: If you want to test Chinese character domains, or even
> visit the Kremlin in Moscow using Russian language domains &ndash;
> §á§â§Ö§Ù§Ú§Õ§Ö§ß§ä.§à§â§Ô &ndash; you can visit the Cesidian Root and
> use their DNS to surf. Instructions are available under the heading
> &ldquo;Changing TCP/IP configuration&rdquo;.
>
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
>
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
>     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>
> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

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/20090625/67080009/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 Jun 25 14:41:53 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Fw: Your message to SSAC-Liaison awaits moderator
 approval
Message-ID: <277151.4583.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thought we would all get a kick out of the "LIASON' list for ICANN being a members only censored list. Just received word that in order to join -- you must work in cybersecurity for no less than 4 nations with conflicting interests.

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, ssac-liaison-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <ssac-liaison-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:


From: ssac-liaison-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <ssac-liaison-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Your message to SSAC-Liaison awaits moderator approval
To: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 6:35 PM


Your mail to 'SSAC-Liaison' with the subject

    Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
itspresident?

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

    Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.  If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:

    http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/confirm/ssac-liaison_atlarge-lists.icann.org/0b9e4c53d63aa8f3a90cc5d02fc6a8f637abe1a9

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090625/42379be3/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  Thu Jun 25 15:00:57 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:00:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 its president?
In-Reply-To: <213639.86281.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <213639.86281.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <GvdLe5qpl8QKFAAm@perry.co.uk>

In message <213639.86281.qm at web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 11:20:08 on 
Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes

>Why did you post this?  It goes to show/prove/enlighten us how?

If you feel justified in posting that, then I feel justified in posting 
mine.
-- 
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  Thu Jun 25 15:07:10 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:07:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
In-Reply-To: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cfwNCqrer8QKFAB4@perry.co.uk>

In message <601439.83735.qm at web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 11:35:58 on 
Thu, 25 Jun 2009, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net writes
>Here is some new news for Roland that internetpolicyagency.com choses 
>not to comment on:

How do you know I choose not to comment?

>Of particular interest is that both Ram and Roland put forth the point 
>of view that Governance Regulation is innapplicable to the Internet 
>unless there are provisions specifically mentioned within the 
>regulation naming application to the internet.

If you stop talking in riddles then maybe I can help you.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Thu Jun 25 15:22:24 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:22:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] U.S. DoC SSAC says DNS redirections a no no.
Message-ID: <874c02a20906251222g5b1ddceq5df437eafb1ee9dc@mail.gmail.com>

with my compliments

http://joebaptista.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/u-s-doc-ssac-says-dns-redirections-a-no-no/

U.S. DoC SSAC says DNS redirections a no
no.<http://joebaptista.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/u-s-doc-ssac-says-dns-redirections-a-no-no/>

*June 24, 2009*
[image: Joe Baptista says Dont Panic ... SSAC is a joke.]

Joe Baptista says Don't Panic ... SSAC is a joke.

*This is serious stuff folks! Do we Internet users trust the U.S. government
with the keys to our computers? I don’t! CLICK to
VOTE<http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1732779/>
.
*

*A review of a report<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac041.pdf>published
June 10 2009 from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC), a U.S. government contractor. *

SSAC a committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), the government contractor who runs most of the planets Internet on
behalf of the U.S., in a recent report claims that DNS redirections present
a potential security risk. It further claimed the practice could result in
an “erosion of trust relationships and the creation of new opportunities for
malicious attack”. The report recommends that ICANN “prohibit the use of
redirection and synthesized responses by new TLDs”.

The claim is nonsense and self serving. DNS redirection does not pose a
security risk to the Internet. It solves a number of technical issues
related to traffic and is an excellent marketing tool for Internet service
providers and Top-Level Domain (TLD) operators.

I think the report is self serving because the sole justification for this
report is found in the claim that the practice, extensively used by service
providers and TLD operators, is an “erosion of trust relationships”. The
only trust being eroded is ICANN’s ability to control the Internet.

The “erosion of trust” reference is in fact ICANN speak to make all of us
compliant with DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions). DNSSEC does
not work under DNS redirection.
[image: DNSSEC = CONTROL]

DNSSEC = CONTROL

DNSSEC is an evil protocol who’s sole purpose is to reverse engineer the
Internet and take over control of a core process. In short ICANN an agency
of the U.S. Government wants to hold the keys to your computer. DNSSEC
forces any computer using the protocol to trust Uncle Sam. Are you ready for
that. I’m not.

Top level domain (TLD) operators are increasingly adopting the practice of
redirecting queries for inactive domains to their own pages. This solve a
big problem some operators have. The constant traffic at TLD servers for
dead domains. It also is a marketing opportunity and a means of generating
sales for TLD registries.

In most cases a notice to the user is given that the domain no longer exists
but is available for purchase. The user gets a simple to understand web page
and the TLD operator makes some bucks on a sale. I see nothing wrong with
that. I think we call it commerce.

ICANN will attempt to control DNS redirection via contracts with new TLD
operators. There is nothing ICANN can do about service providers redirecting
traffic or existing contracts with legacy TLD operators.

*EOL*

*Editor note: *My public comment on the Deployment of DNSSEC is on file with
the U.S. Department of Commerce at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment034.pdf>
*
*


-- 
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/20090625/7ed5445a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jun 25 17:34:14 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:34:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity
In-Reply-To: <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>
References: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
 <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20090625225358.7D3EDA6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net>

At 18:30 25/06/2009, Roland Perry wrote:
>In message 
><874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
>09:54:33 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org> writes
>>ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss its president
>
>Old news, this broke on the 13th.

I made it public and posted a comment on my French internet community 
leaders list (comptoir at cafedu.com) on the 10th. I hope I did not leak 
it too early. BTW, went to your site, is your initiative already 
active? Other sites might be interested in internationnally joining 
European information forces?
Best
jfc

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jun 26 07:31:32 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:31:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
In-Reply-To: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <sHzB0eWUGLRKFAeT@perry.co.uk>

In message <601439.83735.qm at web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 11:35:58 on 
Thu, 25 Jun 2009, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net writes

Let's have another go:

>Of particular interest is that both Ram

I do not know this person - when I last looked the SSAC chair was still 
Steve Crocker.

>and Roland put forth the point of view that Governance Regulation
>is innapplicable to the Internet unless there are provisions
>specifically mentioned within the regulation naming application
>to the internet. 

I don't recall saying that - if it was supposed to be at the ICANN 
meeting then there is some mistaken identity here (I've been in England 
all week).

Indeed my normal view is the opposite - that all "real world" laws also 
apply to the Internet, and it's unhelpful to pretend that "cyberspace" 
is outside the law.
-- 
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  Fri Jun 26 07:31:48 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:31:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity
In-Reply-To: <20090625225358.7D3EDA6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <874c02a20906250654u7d432194occc5816082d52571@mail.gmail.com>
 <Eb3LzDhCZ6QKFAiE@perry.co.uk>
 <20090625225358.7D3EDA6C95@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <mHfD01WkGLRKFAev@perry.co.uk>

In message <20090625225358.7D3EDA6C95 at smtp2.electricembers.net>, at 
23:34:14 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> writes

> BTW, went to your site, is your initiative already active?

It's been running six years now.

>Other sites might be interested in internationnally joining European 
>information forces?

It is not the intention of the site to provide information, so that 
would not be appropriate. It is, in effect, an online CV.

And I hope (in answer to others) that it provides a certain degree of 
transparency regarding who I am, and what I do for a living.
-- 
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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn  Fri Jun 26 11:43:06 2009
From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:43:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
Message-ID: <004101c9f674$ccab2fe0$66018fa0$@benjemaa@planet.tn>

Dear all,

 

Jean Louis asked me to forward this e-mail to the lists because he got a refusal message when he tried to send it himself, perhaps because his address changed from wanadoo to orange.

 

 

De : gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] De la part de Jean-Louis FULLSACK
Envoyé : vendredi 26 juin 2009 14:28
À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org
Objet : [Gov 687] Apologies and thanks

 


Dear members of the governance lists

Fisrt of all I'd apologize for my long quasi silence on our lists, especially to all those of you who sent me such numerous mails following my May 22nd heart attack during the closing session of our annual WSIS Forum in Geneva.

I realized only some days later, especially through Francis Muguet's visits and phone converstions, that I probably put some confusion -maybe even more- among those of you attending this session and I apologize for that. I also must repeat here the chance I've got for having been rescued within a couple of minutes by the ITU security staff, and would recall once more that I owe it to Patrick Ticon to be able to exchange ideas with each membrer and friend among you today. Since then, one month has passed and that's the reason for me to apologize. Probably the burden of writing in English has somehow contributed to this delay ....
 
So, please accept my apologies as well as my profound gratitude for your friendly and supportive messages. 

I also thanked the ITU Secretary general for his visit and his kind support and, over all, for the efficiency and friendlyness of the ITU security staff. Having done that I didn't forget that, during the different sessions of the Forum, I have asked for some actions to be given priority in the WSIS follow-up. Among them, threee ones are of highest importance in my viewpoint :
- Set-up a special Study Group dedicated to the relation and links between ICTs and Renewable Energies (RE) in DCs, focussing especially on photovoltaics and their integration in the design of both ICT/telecom equipment and telecom networks. This study group should be given equal rights to those officially established in the ITU-T and ITU-D and benefit from this double umbrella.
- Carry out the study (with the ITU as leading body) and implement the project of an actual African Interconnecting Network (AIN)  interlinking the main continental hubs (telecom traffic and Internet traffic) and connecting this AIN to the most appropriated gateways to the Global telecom infrastructure (through thoroughly selected landing stations !) and in a fully network centered vision.
- Set-up a multistakeholder based Financing Mechanisms Forum FMF), with equal abilities and functions to the IGF, and therefore recognized by all the partners within the WSIS follow-up process, and placed under the umbrella of the UNDP and the ITU (focussing especially on financing the main WSIS objectives such as the access to each village in DCs).

In my opinion, the second point is in a large part about governance in general and Internet governance in paricular, at least as far as "Internet essential/critical resources" are a paramount part and objective of a AIN planning process. Only such an integrated approach could be able to maintain intra-African communications within the African continent and thereby contribute to lower significantly their cost, i.e. the tariffs for intra-African coms, whatever may be their nature.  

I do hope that these three points will get the due attention and priority, first in CS as a main solidarity concern with our colleagues and friends from "the Southern countries", wherever they are located.

All the best 

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090626/5d56a715/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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 16:41:46 2009
From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] COME CELEBRATE WITH ME AS WE PRAISE GOD!
Message-ID: <105256.33348.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Dear Friends, colleagues and Relatives,

This is to inform you all with humility, that, come tomorrow 27th June 2009, I shall be receiveing a DOUBLE AWARD: "REMEMBER AFRICA AWARDS 2009" for Nurses Across the Borders and myself as the CEO at COmmonwealth Club-Home of the Commonwealth Soceity London. The event comes up at The Commonwealth Club, 18-25 Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BJ. Time: 5.30pm. I am allowed 20 seats for my Table as Guests for the event. IF YOU ARE MY TRUE FRIEND, JOIN ME. Will You?.


Six guests are ready-my wife, two members from Nigeria and two pastor friends of mine and my Senior sister from Manchester. Now, each will have to support the Commonwealth Club with a hundred pounds for a FULL COURSE MEAL at the occasion. The proceed will be used to provide Libraries in some countries in Africa. Well the AWARDS are in recognition (in their own words) 

 

"...for your great endeavour and dedication 
to Africa. You deserve this award for your endless effort in helping to make poverty history in Africa through your caring and relief projects for Africa. GOD BLESS YOU!" 

 

Those were their words. This is the Lord's doing. To be recognised in the United Kingdom, when I though that, all these years, I was wasting my time with all the efforts I put into Nurses Across the Borders even with outright betrayals, persecutions Lies, discouragement and disappointments. But God has a way of compensating hard work, sincererity and commitment. My passion for Nurses Across the Borders is unquantifiable. 

 

This AWARD is put together by The Commonwealth Club Home of the Commonwealth Soceity London in collaboration with OBE TV, TALENT ON TV, COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES LEAGUE LONDON, THE ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN WOMEN, UK. 

 

Is God not good? PRAISE GOD!!!

 

Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 
Executive President/CEO 
Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) 
An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) 
Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 
359, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A 
Tel:+234-1-875-1945, +234-1-805-265-8024,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) 
FAX:+234-1-255-7586 
Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com 
URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org



Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 
Executive President/CEO 
Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) 
An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) 
Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 
359, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A 
Tel:+234-1-875-1945, +234-1-805-265-8024,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) 
FAX:+234-1-255-7586 
Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com 
URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org

Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 
Executive President/CEO 
Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) 
Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org  NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights.  NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 26 18:40:41 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
Message-ID: <159471.65531.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thank you Roland,
 
Your clarity is helpful. I like your go of it much more than my inciteful suggestion. It was quite improper to throw you in with Mr. Crocker and Mohan. Being a bit of a loopholer myself I would not say "above" the law but beside it. 
So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?
 
Oh about Ram -- He is a Liason; (please ignore the dead link - Mr. Mohan runs by the theory "if it don't work -- thats pretty secure eh?""
 
""""" "Ram Mohan" <rmohan at afilias.info>



George,
I write as SSAC's Liaison to the Board.  I will take your suggestion forward
regarding a study on invalid TLDs into the SSAC's planning session at the
Sydney meeting.

Regarding lack of prohibition for wildcarding for new gTLDs, may I refer you
to SSAC's recent publication of an advisory regarding the prohibition of
redirection and synthesis of DNS responses[SAC041 -
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac041.pdf].""""


--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:


From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss itspresident?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 11:31 AM


In message <601439.83735.qm at web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 11:35:58 on Thu, 25 Jun 2009, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net writes

Let's have another go:

> Of particular interest is that both Ram

I do not know this person - when I last looked the SSAC chair was still Steve Crocker.

> and Roland put forth the point of view that Governance Regulation
> is innapplicable to the Internet unless there are provisions
> specifically mentioned within the regulation naming application
> to the internet. 

I don't recall saying that - if it was supposed to be at the ICANN meeting then there is some mistaken identity here (I've been in England all week).

Indeed my normal view is the opposite - that all "real world" laws also apply to the Internet, and it's unhelpful to pretend that "cyberspace" is outside the law.
-- 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/20090626/ab566bea/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 Jun 27 03:45:22 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:45:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
In-Reply-To: <159471.65531.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <159471.65531.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <uwSxpuVS4cRKFAsB@perry.co.uk>

In message <159471.65531.qm at web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 15:40:41 on 
Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes

>So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around
>the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight
>forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?

I don't usually help people "work around" the regs. My primary aim is
to make sure the regs which are put in place are the right ones; and 
once in place that they are used as effectively as possible to hinder 
the bad guys.  But I do spend quite some time telling people why certain 
regulations don't apply[1] to them, were never intended to apply to 
them; which isn't quite the same as avoiding the regs.

[1] Often manifested by authorities claiming powers they don't actually 
have, or ignoring safeguards that should have inhibited them.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 05:04:40 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:04:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] COME CELEBRATE WITH ME AS WE PRAISE GOD!
In-Reply-To: <105256.33348.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <105256.33348.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30906270204r64d8519do3d370c4702fcac73@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations for the awards Pastor Peters

More greese to your elbows

Aaron

On 6/26/09, NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS <nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends, colleagues and Relatives,
>
> This is to inform you all with humility, that, come tomorrow 27th June 2009,
> I shall be receiveing a DOUBLE AWARD: "REMEMBER AFRICA AWARDS 2009" for
> Nurses Across the Borders and myself as the CEO at COmmonwealth Club-Home of
> the Commonwealth Soceity London. The event comes up at The Commonwealth
> Club, 18-25 Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BJ. Time: 5.30pm. I am
> allowed 20 seats for my Table as Guests for the event. IF YOU ARE MY TRUE
> FRIEND, JOIN ME. Will You?.
>
>
> Six guests are ready-my wife, two members from Nigeria and two pastor
> friends of mine and my Senior sister from Manchester. Now, each will have to
> support the Commonwealth Club with a hundred pounds for a FULL COURSE MEAL
> at the occasion. The proceed will be used to provide Libraries in some
> countries in Africa. Well the AWARDS are in recognition (in their own words)
>
>
>
> "...for your great endeavour and dedication
> to Africa. You deserve this award for your endless effort in helping to make
> poverty history in Africa through your caring and relief projects for
> Africa. GOD BLESS YOU!"
>
>
>
> Those were their words. This is the Lord's doing. To be recognised in the
> United Kingdom, when I though that, all these years, I was wasting my time
> with all the efforts I put into Nurses Across the Borders even with outright
> betrayals, persecutions Lies, discouragement and disappointments. But God
> has a way of compensating hard work, sincererity and commitment. My passion
> for Nurses Across the Borders is unquantifiable.
>
>
>
> This AWARD is put together by The Commonwealth Club Home of the Commonwealth
> Soceity London in collaboration with OBE TV, TALENT ON TV, COMMONWEALTH
> COUNTRIES LEAGUE LONDON, THE ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN WOMEN, UK.
>
>
>
> Is God not good? PRAISE GOD!!!
>
>
>
> Pastor Peters OMORAGBON
> Executive President/CEO
> Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A)
> An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council
> of the United Nations-(ECOSOC)
> Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
> (UNFCCC)
> 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA
> 359, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A
> Tel:+234-1-875-1945, +234-1-805-265-8024,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile)
> FAX:+234-1-255-7586
> Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com
> URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org
>
>
>
> Pastor Peters OMORAGBON
> Executive President/CEO
> Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A)
> An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council
> of the United Nations-(ECOSOC)
> Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
> (UNFCCC)
> 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA
> 359, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A
> Tel:+234-1-875-1945, +234-1-805-265-8024,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile)
> FAX:+234-1-255-7586
> Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com
> URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org
>
> Pastor Peters OMORAGBON
> Executive President/CEO
> Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An
> NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of
> the United Nations-(ECOSOC)
> Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
> (UNFCCC)
> URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org  NABHI as affiliate of the United
> Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it
> pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE
> believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for
> Fundamental Human Rights.  NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT
> AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
Special Assistant The President
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Jun 27 08:01:21 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:01:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss 
In-Reply-To: <uwSxpuVS4cRKFAsB@perry.co.uk>
References: <159471.65531.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <uwSxpuVS4cRKFAsB@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <1f9674ed0906270501j241bd836pa15b460425081231@mail.gmail.com>

Yes; The real issue is when the "regs" (as most of them) apply to a
restricted vision of the Internet architecture that some try to impose for a
lot of good reasons, and users' communities and applications may want to
take a full advantage from the real Internet as it is, not as some which or
think it is.

This is the difficult part, because it is not a transition from a technology
to another one, but a transition from a set of constraints to  open world.
This is precisely what is currently happening at the IETF/WG-IDNABIS.
Respecting the Charter leads to a complete evolution of the Internet usage,
governance, adminance (aministrative and technical governance), services and
economy. This is why a few try to curb usage through architectural tricks,
while others try to document what the Internet really is and propose a
progressive adaptation.

This is also happening while we observe a growing trend from passive content
to active content. This blurs many things. Moreover it permits to consider
the happening of the new communication semantic stratum. With new POV on
many things.
jfc

2009/6/27 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>

> In message <159471.65531.qm at web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 15:40:41 on
> Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>  So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around
>> the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight
>> forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?
>>
>
> I don't usually help people "work around" the regs. My primary aim is
> to make sure the regs which are put in place are the right ones; and once
> in place that they are used as effectively as possible to hinder the bad
> guys.  But I do spend quite some time telling people why certain regulations
> don't apply[1] to them, were never intended to apply to them; which isn't
> quite the same as avoiding the regs.
>
> [1] Often manifested by authorities claiming powers they don't actually
> have, or ignoring safeguards that should have inhibited them.
>
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090627/b24718bb/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  Sat Jun 27 09:18:55 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
 itspresident?
Message-ID: <97035.86098.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I really think this is helpful.  When discussing governance, too many ivory tower type suspects gather round and discuss "ideal". Too often these are the same folks who quietly whisper about or censor outspoken frank people. Just as too often regulations get through without any real life examination of how it effects business and consumers. 
Because of the above, effective parties are forced into rationalizations as to why a particular reg. does not apply to their situation or activity. And rightfully so.
I believe that lists such as this should never miss the opportunity to cause havoc amoung the intellectuals by forcing a public justification for proposing and adopting rules that look cool but suck in application.
Security is chief amoung the victims of, straight pinky, white gloved intellectuals with no grease pit life experience.

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:


From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss itspresident?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 7:45 AM


In message <159471.65531.qm at web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 15:40:41 on Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes

> So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around
> the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight
> forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?

I don't usually help people "work around" the regs. My primary aim is
to make sure the regs which are put in place are the right ones; and once in place that they are used as effectively as possible to hinder the bad guys.  But I do spend quite some time telling people why certain regulations don't apply[1] to them, were never intended to apply to them; which isn't quite the same as avoiding the regs.

[1] Often manifested by authorities claiming powers they don't actually have, or ignoring safeguards that should have inhibited them.
-- Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
W
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090627/6b51952e/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  Sat Jun 27 09:28:05 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
Message-ID: <100659.34498.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Dare I say Jefsey that your language here indicates that you believe it is either regulated or anarchy or nothing. "but a transition from a set of constraints to  open world.""  I assume you are double meaning the concept of "open world". Combining the Vietnam model of all gov. contracts = open source, with a notion of no restrictions.
 
But I have known and try to follow you since about 2000 and I read into this that you are proposing that our only real restrictions be compatibility in applications on a technical level.
 
Are you suggesting that the only real security is based upon stability through adaptation in orderly evolution?

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:


From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 12:01 PM


Yes; The real issue is when the "regs" (as most of them) apply to a restricted vision of the Internet architecture that some try to impose for a lot of good reasons, and users' communities and applications may want to take a full advantage from the real Internet as it is, not as some which or think it is. 

This is the difficult part, because it is not a transition from a technology to another one, but a transition from a set of constraints to  open world. This is precisely what is currently happening at the IETF/WG-IDNABIS. Respecting the Charter leads to a complete evolution of the Internet usage, governance, adminance (aministrative and technical governance), services and economy. This is why a few try to curb usage through architectural tricks, while others try to document what the Internet really is and propose a progressive adaptation. 

This is also happening while we observe a growing trend from passive content to active content. This blurs many things. Moreover it permits to consider the happening of the new communication semantic stratum. With new POV on many things.
jfc


2009/6/27 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <159471.65531.qm at web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 15:40:41 on Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes



So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around
the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight
forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?

I don't usually help people "work around" the regs. My primary aim is
to make sure the regs which are put in place are the right ones; and once in place that they are used as effectively as possible to hinder the bad guys.  But I do spend quite some time telling people why certain regulations don't apply[1] to them, were never intended to apply to them; which isn't quite the same as avoiding the regs.

[1] Often manifested by authorities claiming powers they don't actually have, or ignoring safeguards that should have inhibited them.



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

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


-----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/20090627/f9d31790/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  Sat Jun 27 10:09:21 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Legitmacy of governing "regulations". (changed)
Message-ID: <353638.13851.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Jefsey,
 
Civil disobedience is not new nor is it morally corrupt. Roland's only requirement while acting in violation of generally accepted provisions of regulations is to willingly accept punishment for his actions. To my knowledge there is no legitmacy to the regs. you cite.  Because there is no generally accepted body politic to adopt them. In the end this illigitmacy is proven by the fact of the absence of policing or enforcement.  Certainly no one can argue that a "legitimate" regulation cannot be enforced. Therefor if the regulation cannot be enforced it is not legitimate.

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity bossitspresident?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, "icann board" <icann-board at icann.org>, "icann legal" <jeffrey at icann.org>, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de>, "DHS info" <info at us-cert.gov>, "DHS cert" <cert at cert.org>, "ICANN SSAC Dave Piscitello" <dave.piscitello at icann.org>, "DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep" <aheineman at ntia.doc.gov>
Cc: "ICANN Dan Halloran" <halloran at icann.org>, "ICANN SSAC Dave Piscitello" <dave.piscitello at icann.org>, "matthias.langenegger at icann.org" <matthias.langenegger at icann.org>, "FTC OIG's office" <OIG at ftc.gov>
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 11:05 AM


Roeland and all,

  The problem with your statement below is that far too often, the
regs in place are superseded by new regs that are usually, but not
always worse then the original regs, and declared by some entity
or group of folks claiming that they are the "Right Regs".

  I also see that your Domain Names DNS doesn't exactly follow
the IETF "Regs", see:
http://www.dnsstuff.com/dnslite/?r=toolspage&domain=internetpolicyagency.com
and
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport?domain=internetpolicyagency.com&token=1220f237cecd71a204d41192389c701a

So which is it?  Do the RFC "Regs" of which you DNS config. violates
not apply to you? ( in one case only can I see this as being applicable ) or
are these RFC "Regs" wrong and so therefore you can feel justified in
violating them as a result?

  Regs if done properly and vetted fully, openly and transparently,
should apply to everyone, not just some as long as those regs
are within their area of endeavor of course.  But it is good to know
that you don't ascribe to such as didn't and doesn't ICANN, which
remains one of several of it's main failings to this day.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <159471.65531.qm at web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 15:40:41 on
> Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> writes
>
> >So it is safe to say that in your work helping others to navigate around
> >the regulations caused maze of doing business your prefer the straight
> >forward technique of total compliance with the regs rather avoidance?
>
> I don't usually help people "work around" the regs. My primary aim is
> to make sure the regs which are put in place are the right ones; and
> once in place that they are used as effectively as possible to hinder
> the bad guys.  But I do spend quite some time telling people why certain
> regulations don't apply[1] to them, were never intended to apply to
> them; which isn't quite the same as avoiding the regs.
>
> [1] Often manifested by authorities claiming powers they don't actually
> have, or ignoring safeguards that should have inhibited them.
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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/20090627/160c91eb/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  Sat Jun 27 10:36:30 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:36:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity boss
In-Reply-To: <100659.34498.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <100659.34498.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906270736q16370769x141b5418db57c241@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Eric Dierker
<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Are you suggesting that the only real security is based upon stability
> through adaptation in orderly evolution?
>


Yes - adaptation or forced evolution.  Adaptation must be quick. There is
not much time left.  I say - max ten years.  After that what has become a
dependency trap - the Internet - goes from being hell on earth to hell in
heaven.

I warned about this several years ago.

http://bit.ly/494e05

cheers
joe baptista

www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090627/1929a78d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 05:28:25 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:28:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
In-Reply-To: <-86306354055426331@unknownmsgid>
References: <-86306354055426331@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906280228w7e216b0as2eba666cbd62f7f@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Tijani BEN
JEMAA<tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Jean Louis asked me to forward this e-mail to the lists because he got a
> refusal message when he tried to send it himself, perhaps because his
> address changed from wanadoo to orange.
>
>
>
>
>
> De : gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] De la part
> de Jean-Louis FULLSACK
> Envoyé : vendredi 26 juin 2009 14:28
> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org
> Objet : [Gov 687] Apologies and thanks
>
>
>
> Dear members of the governance lists
>
> Fisrt of all I'd apologize for my long quasi silence on our lists,
> especially to all those of you who sent me such numerous mails following my
> May 22nd heart attack during the closing session of our annual WSIS Forum in
> Geneva.
>
> I realized only some days later, especially through Francis Muguet's visits
> and phone converstions, that I probably put some confusion -maybe even more-
> among those of you attending this session and I apologize for that. I also
> must repeat here the chance I've got for having been rescued within a couple
> of minutes by the ITU security staff, and would recall once more that I owe
> it to Patrick Ticon to be able to exchange ideas with each membrer and
> friend among you today. Since then, one month has passed and that's the
> reason for me to apologize. Probably the burden of writing in English has
> somehow contributed to this delay ....
>
> So, please accept my apologies as well as my profound gratitude for your
> friendly and supportive messages.
>
> I also thanked the ITU Secretary general for his visit and his kind support
> and, over all, for the efficiency and friendlyness of the ITU security
> staff. Having done that I didn't forget that, during the different sessions
> of the Forum, I have asked for some actions to be given priority in the WSIS
> follow-up. Among them, threee ones are of highest importance in my viewpoint
> :
> - Set-up a special Study Group dedicated to the relation and links between
> ICTs and Renewable Energies (RE) in DCs, focussing especially on
> photovoltaics and their integration in the design of both ICT/telecom
> equipment and telecom networks. This study group should be given equal
> rights to those officially established in the ITU-T and ITU-D and benefit
> from this double umbrella.


but the PS is doing this already:

http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/development-fund/energy/index.htm

> - Carry out the study (with the ITU as leading body) and implement the
> project of an actual African Interconnecting Network (AIN)  interlinking the
> main continental hubs (telecom traffic and Internet traffic) and connecting
> this AIN to the most appropriated gateways to the Global telecom
> infrastructure (through thoroughly selected landing stations !) and in a
> fully network centered vision.

This is what IXen do.  Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).


> - Set-up a multistakeholder based Financing Mechanisms Forum FMF), with
> equal abilities and functions to the IGF, and therefore recognized by all
> the partners within the WSIS follow-up process, and placed under the
> umbrella of the UNDP and the ITU (focussing especially on financing the main
> WSIS objectives such as the access to each village in DCs).
>
> In my opinion, the second point is in a large part about governance in
> general and Internet governance in paricular, at least as far as "Internet
> essential/critical resources" are a paramount part and objective of a AIN
> planning process. Only such an integrated approach could be able to maintain
> intra-African communications within the African continent and thereby
> contribute to lower significantly their cost, i.e. the tariffs for
> intra-African coms, whatever may be their nature.

In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
the continent.  In other words, we don't worry so much about the cost
of intra-African Comms, it's the rest of the world we want to get to
cheaply!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 28 09:29:12 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet Helps Iran Silence Activists
Message-ID: <836254.98584.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Jeff,
 
Your subject line - headline is irresponsible, misleading and beneath your normal reliability.
 
Tyrants silence dissenters. That is a given. We would be better off trying to cut off the air they breathe than trying to prevent tools they can use to do so. But I really do like your notion that the Internet is a living breathing thing that can do something.  Yesterday my coaxial layed itself and my drill put a hole in the wall while my computer educated me. Today my car will drive me around to a house of worhsip that will give me faith. At least most americans will naturally die of their fat rather than their own lifestyles.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: The Internet Helps Iran Silence Activists
To: "Governance/IGC" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de>, "Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista at publicroot.org>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 11:05 AM


All,

  Well here we have an example of how state sponsored and
controlled censorship can work for the bad guys such as tyrants
and suppress activists on a more grand scale, not that this is
really anything new of course.  But could this be previews of
coming attractions in the US, France, Sweden, Germany,
and the UK?   Looks like we are fast heading in this direction.

See: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/06/27/0344230

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/20090628/ed709322/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  Sun Jun 28 10:36:16 2009
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:36:16 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906280228w7e216b0as2eba666cbd62f7f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <-86306354055426331@unknownmsgid>
 <f65fb55e0906280228w7e216b0as2eba666cbd62f7f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22435632.3865.1246199776317.JavaMail.www@wwinf2230>

Dear McTim

You wrote :
This is what IXen do. Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
> Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
> moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
> just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
> USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).

What is IXen ? 
The problem isn't "to moot" once the "two cables per coast ..." exist, BUT to avoid any cable to be laid and paid if it isn't an INTEGRATED part in an efficient target network.
In addition I'd remind you that every transport and transit has a cost ! Even transporting and changing photons in electrons and conversely ! And for Gigapackets to cross twice the Atlantic it has a price, even for (richer) Europeans. As an enginer I cannot accept such schemes based on short financial views be guidelines in network design. Especially of one keeps in mind what happened -and how many billions were spent without any further use- during the dot.com bubble. Just an example, there were at that time 23 "pan-european networks" existing in parallel and actually some of them are simply forgotten ... If we are to help Africa in its way for development we should be very careful and "technology and econoy driven" in our proposals especially as OPERATION & MAINTENANCE is the other major problem in any network, and more particularly in Africa than in the RoW. A good design for a network is this one that is resilient, survivable, upgradable, maintenable ... and affordable for the operators over the lifetime. 

< In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
> the continent.

As a friend of Africa I cannot accept this statement. I hope that Africans will progressively (and at a good pace) develop THEIR own content and applications and put them as soon as possible on the "pipes" for the sake of their populations, economy and culture ! Shouldn't the CS from everywhere support strongly this hope ? 

All the best

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT

> Message du 28/06/09 11:28
> De : "McTim" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" 
> Copie à : gov at wsis-gov.org
> Objet : Re: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Tijani BEN
> JEMAA wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jean Louis asked me to forward this e-mail to the lists because he got a
> > refusal message when he tried to send it himself, perhaps because his
> > address changed from wanadoo to orange.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > De : gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] De la part
> > de Jean-Louis FULLSACK
> > Envoyé : vendredi 26 juin 2009 14:28
> > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org
> > Objet : [Gov 687] Apologies and thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear members of the governance lists
> >
> > Fisrt of all I'd apologize for my long quasi silence on our lists,
> > especially to all those of you who sent me such numerous mails following my
> > May 22nd heart attack during the closing session of our annual WSIS Forum in
> > Geneva.
> >
> > I realized only some days later, especially through Francis Muguet's visits
> > and phone converstions, that I probably put some confusion -maybe even more-
> > among those of you attending this session and I apologize for that. I also
> > must repeat here the chance I've got for having been rescued within a couple
> > of minutes by the ITU security staff, and would recall once more that I owe
> > it to Patrick Ticon to be able to exchange ideas with each membrer and
> > friend among you today. Since then, one month has passed and that's the
> > reason for me to apologize. Probably the burden of writing in English has
> > somehow contributed to this delay ....
> >
> > So, please accept my apologies as well as my profound gratitude for your
> > friendly and supportive messages.
> >
> > I also thanked the ITU Secretary general for his visit and his kind support
> > and, over all, for the efficiency and friendlyness of the ITU security
> > staff. Having done that I didn't forget that, during the different sessions
> > of the Forum, I have asked for some actions to be given priority in the WSIS
> > follow-up. Among them, threee ones are of highest importance in my viewpoint
> > :
> > - Set-up a special Study Group dedicated to the relation and links between
> > ICTs and Renewable Energies (RE) in DCs, focussing especially on
> > photovoltaics and their integration in the design of both ICT/telecom
> > equipment and telecom networks. This study group should be given equal
> > rights to those officially established in the ITU-T and ITU-D and benefit
> > from this double umbrella.
> 
> 
> but the PS is doing this already:
> 
> http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/development-fund/energy/index.htm
> 
> > - Carry out the study (with the ITU as leading body) and implement the
> > project of an actual African Interconnecting Network (AIN) interlinking the
> > main continental hubs (telecom traffic and Internet traffic) and connecting
> > this AIN to the most appropriated gateways to the Global telecom
> > infrastructure (through thoroughly selected landing stations !) and in a
> > fully network centered vision.
> 
> This is what IXen do. Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
> Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
> moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
> just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
> USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).
> 
> 
> > - Set-up a multistakeholder based Financing Mechanisms Forum FMF), with
> > equal abilities and functions to the IGF, and therefore recognized by all
> > the partners within the WSIS follow-up process, and placed under the
> > umbrella of the UNDP and the ITU (focussing especially on financing the main
> > WSIS objectives such as the access to each village in DCs).
> >
> > In my opinion, the second point is in a large part about governance in
> > general and Internet governance in paricular, at least as far as "Internet
> > essential/critical resources" are a paramount part and objective of a AIN
> > planning process. Only such an integrated approach could be able to maintain
> > intra-African communications within the African continent and thereby
> > contribute to lower significantly their cost, i.e. the tariffs for
> > intra-African coms, whatever may be their nature.
> 
> In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
> the continent. In other words, we don't worry so much about the cost
> of intra-African Comms, it's the rest of the world we want to get to
> cheaply!
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090628/a8ce9f69/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 Jun 28 11:18:39 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
Message-ID: <805670.1298.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I do not want to appear rude or intrusive into this mutual admiration society, but;
 
Have you two stepped back and reviewed your public statements from a sociological, anthropological and governance point of view?
 
Have either of you read; Das Kapital*, Mien Kompf** or your respective country's declarations of independence?  Have you ever considered that wild and crazy notion -- free enterprise?
Have you ever noticed a general public disdain for gross western globalization and multinationalism?
 
Gentlemen I do not usually waste my time on people with no promise.  So I assume you will not take my questions as insults.  They are questions I raise because your comments seem so much like you two believe; Governance is the elite deciding what is best for the commoner.
 
(I use amazon here as a sort of sarcasm on popularity)
 
*Amazon.com: Das Kapital, Gateway Edition (Skeptical Reader Series ...





Das Kapital is essential reading for any educated person. Unfortunately, this hardcover ... Das Kapital is the anylasis of Capital and Capitalism. ...
www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Gateway-Skeptical-Reader/.../089526711X
 
**Amazon.com: Mein Kampf: Adolf Hitler, Ralph Manheim: Books




Start reading Mein Kampf on your Kindle in under a minute. .... Called everything from garbage to a Satanic Bible, Mein Kampf is the written words of one of ...
www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037


--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:


From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
Subject: Re: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 2:36 PM


Dear McTim

You wrote :
<but the PS is doing this already:
<http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/development-fund/energy/index.htm
 

This is certainly a very interesting initiative but reduced to some applications in the mobile networks/systems. We need a far more extended R&D work to be carried out especialy in the integration of both ER and ICT concepts and principles for the whole spectrum of ICT/Telecom equipment. That is the fundament of my proposal.

> This is what IXen do. Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
> Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
> moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
> just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
> USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).

What is IXen ? 
The problem isn't "to moot" once the "two cables per coast ..." exist, BUT to avoid any cable to be laid and paid if it isn't an INTEGRATED part in an efficient target network.
In addition I'd remind you that every transport and transit has a cost ! Even transporting and changing photons in electrons and conversely ! And for Gigapackets to cross twice the Atlantic it has a price, even for (richer) Europeans. As an enginer I cannot accept such schemes based on short financial views be guidelines in network design. Especially of one keeps in mind what happened -and how many billions were spent without any further use- during the dot.com bubble. Just an example, there were at that time 23 "pan-european networks" existing in parallel and actually some of them are simply forgotten ... If we are to help Africa in its way for development we should be very careful and "technology and econoy driven" in our proposals especially as OPERATION & MAINTENANCE is the other major problem in any network, and more particularly in Africa than in the RoW. A good design for a network is this one that is resilient, survivable, upgradable,
 maintenable ... and affordable for the operators over the lifetime. 

< In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
> the continent.

As a friend of Africa I cannot accept this statement. I hope that Africans will progressively (and at a good pace) develop THEIR own content and applications and put them as soon as possible on the "pipes" for the sake of their populations, economy and culture ! Shouldn't the CS from everywhere support strongly this hope ? 

All the best

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT

> Message du 28/06/09 11:28
> De : "McTim" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" 
> Copie à : gov at wsis-gov.org
> Objet : Re: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Tijani BEN
> JEMAA wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jean Louis asked me to forward this e-mail to the lists because he got a
> > refusal message when he tried to send it himself, perhaps because his
> > address changed from wanadoo to orange.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > De : gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] De la part
> > de Jean-Louis FULLSACK
> > Envoyé : vendredi 26 juin 2009 14:28
> > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org
> > Objet : [Gov 687] Apologies and thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear members of the governance lists
> >
> > Fisrt of all I'd apologize for my long quasi silence on our lists,
> > especially to all those of you who sent me such numerous mails following my
> > May 22nd heart attack during the closing session of our annual WSIS Forum in
> > Geneva.
> >
> > I realized only some days later, especially through Francis Muguet's visits
> > and phone converstions, that I probably put some confusion -maybe even more-
> > among those of you attending this session and I apologize for that. I also
> > must repeat here the chance I've got for having been rescued within a couple
> > of minutes by the ITU security staff, and would recall once more that I owe
> > it to Patrick Ticon to be able to exchange ideas with each membrer and
> > friend among you today. Since then, one month has passed and that's the
> > reason for me to apologize. Probably the burden of writing in English has
> > somehow contributed to this delay ....
> >
> > So, please accept my apologies as well as my profound gratitude for your
> > friendly and supportive messages.
> >
> > I also thanked the ITU Secretary general for his visit and his kind support
> > and, over all, for the efficiency and friendlyness of the ITU security
> > staff. Having done that I didn't forget that, during the different sessions
> > of the Forum, I have asked for some actions to be given priority in the WSIS
> > follow-up. Among them, threee ones are of highest importance in my viewpoint
> > :
> > - Set-up a special Study Group dedicated to the relation and links between
> > ICTs and Renewable Energies (RE) in DCs, focussing especially on
> > photovoltaics and their integration in the design of both ICT/telecom
> > equipment and telecom networks. This study group should be given equal
> > rights to those officially established in the ITU-T and ITU-D and benefit
> > from this double umbrella.
> 
> 
> but the PS is doing this already:
> 
> http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/development-fund/energy/index.htm
> 
> > - Carry out the study (with the ITU as leading body) and implement the
> > project of an actual African Interconnecting Network (AIN)  interlinking the
> > main continental hubs (telecom traffic and Internet traffic) and connecting
> > this AIN to the most appropriated gateways to the Global telecom
> > infrastructure (through thoroughly selected landing stations !) and in a
> > fully network centered vision.
> 
> This is what IXen do. Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
> Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
> moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
> just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
> USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).
> 
> 
> > - Set-up a multistakeholder based Financing Mechanisms Forum FMF), with
> > equal abilities and functions to the IGF, and therefore recognized by all
> > the partners within the WSIS follow-up process, and placed under the
> > umbrella of the UNDP and the ITU (focussing especially on financing the main
> > WSIS objectives such as the access to each village in DCs).
> >
> > In my opinion, the second point is in a large part about governance in
> > general and Internet governance in paricular, at least as far as "Internet
> > essential/critical resources" are a paramount part and objective of a AIN
> > planning process. Only such an integrated approach could be able to maintain
> > intra-African communications within the African continent and thereby
> > contribute to lower significantly their cost, i.e. the tariffs for
> > intra-African coms, whatever may be their nature.
> 
> In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
> the continent. In other words, we don't worry so much about the cost
> of intra-African Comms, it's the rest of the world we want to get to
> cheaply!
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-----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/20090628/be67fe2b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 12:17:41 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:17:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
In-Reply-To: <22435632.3865.1246199776317.JavaMail.www@wwinf2230>
References: <-86306354055426331@unknownmsgid>
	 <f65fb55e0906280228w7e216b0as2eba666cbd62f7f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <22435632.3865.1246199776317.JavaMail.www@wwinf2230>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906280917s38e6903byb0e50398dc696ca8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jean-Louis
FULLSACK<jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:
> Dear McTim
>
> You wrote :
> <but the PS is doing this already:
> <http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/development-fund/energy/index.htm
>
>
> This is certainly a very interesting initiative but reduced to some
> applications in the mobile networks/systems. We need a far more extended R&D
> work to be carried out especialy in the integration of both ER and ICT
> concepts and principles for the whole spectrum of ICT/Telecom equipment.
> That is the fundament of my proposal.
>
>> This is what IXen do. Once we have at least 2 cables per coast in
>> Africa (and fiber backhaul to the interior) this need SHOULD become
>> moot. It will, in theory, no longer matter if traffic leaves Africa,
>> just as it doesn't matter if traffic from a European User transits the
>> USA on it's journey to a European server (and back).
>
> What is IXen ?


the plural of IXP (Internet Exchange Point)


> The problem isn't "to moot" once the "two cables per coast ..." exist, BUT
> to avoid any cable to be laid and paid if it isn't an INTEGRATED part in an
> efficient target network.

The facts are clear, EASSy cable system was introduced as a concept ~6
years ago.  Since then, it's been all intergov talk and
financing/political wrangles.  SEACOM idea came about ~2 years ago,
and it is being completed this month.

EASSy is an integrated network....depite the fact that it may never be bulit.

> In addition I'd remind you that every transport and transit has a cost !
> Even transporting and changing photons in electrons and conversely ! And for
> Gigapackets to cross twice the Atlantic it has a price, even for (richer)
> Europeans. As an enginer I cannot accept such schemes based on short
> financial views be guidelines in network design.

Yes, but unfortuantely, engineers only run the networks, they don't
run the companies that own the networks ;-/

 Especially of one keeps in
> mind what happened -and how many billions were spent without any further
> use- during the dot.com bubble. Just an example, there were at that time 23
> "pan-european networks" existing in parallel and actually some of them are
> simply forgotten ... If we are to help Africa in its way for development we
> should be very careful and "technology and econoy driven" in our
> proposals especially as OPERATION & MAINTENANCE is the other major problem
> in any network, and more particularly in Africa than in the RoW. A good
> design for a network is this one that is resilient, survivable, upgradable,
> maintenable ... and affordable for the operators over the lifetime.
>
> < In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
>> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
>> the continent.
>
> As a friend of Africa I cannot accept this statement.

Well it's the current reality, whether you accept it or not.

I hope that Africans
> will progressively (and at a good pace) develop THEIR own content and
> applications and put them as soon as possible on the "pipes" for the sake of
> their populations, economy and culture ! Shouldn't the CS from everywhere
> support strongly this hope ?

of course, but until then....


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 28 13:11:20 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] TR: Apologies and thanks
Message-ID: <623849.86809.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Sorry McTim,
 
But you are very wrong here.  It is very fortunate indeed.
 
And the question is not resiliency but usability --  a great resilient system that nobody uses answers all your other questions. Your issues regarding friendship and in and out of Africa, dotBombs and maintainability are a direct reflection of your failure to consider what makes people use your stuff.  Take a look at marketing and sales  --  that is what pays for this gear not benevolent governments. (you don't even seem to consider - Twitter, Itunes, facebook, myspace, ebay types, craiglist types and what makes a 10 million dollar domain, skype, yahoo messenger, pirate bay, efaxes and remittance transfers)  

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:


Yes, but unfortuantely, engineers only run the networks, they don't
run the companies that own the networks ;-/

Especially of one keeps in
> mind what happened -and how many billions were spent without any further
> use- during the dot.com bubble. Just an example, there were at that time 23
> "pan-european networks" existing in parallel and actually some of them are
> simply forgotten ... If we are to help Africa in its way for development we
> should be very careful and "technology and econoy driven" in our
> proposals especially as OPERATION & MAINTENANCE is the other major problem
> in any network, and more particularly in Africa than in the RoW. A good
> design for a network is this one that is resilient, survivable, upgradable,
> maintenable ... and affordable for the operators over the lifetime.
>
> < In Africa, most of our traffic leaves the continent, as there isn't
>> the local content and applications available to keep traffic within
>> the continent.
>
> As a friend of Africa I cannot accept this statement.

Well it's the current reality, whether you accept it or not.

I hope that Africans
> will progressively (and at a good pace) develop THEIR own content and
> applications and put them as soon as possible on the "pipes" for the sake of
> their populations, economy and culture ! Shouldn't the CS from everywhere
> support strongly this hope ?

of course, but until then....


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090628/94179a4a/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 Jun 29 06:22:20 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:22:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity
 bossitspresident?
In-Reply-To: <4A45FD05.3B4D6F0E@ix.netcom.com>
References: <159471.65531.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <uwSxpuVS4cRKFAsB@perry.co.uk> <4A45FD05.3B4D6F0E@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <oKyQnKrcXJSKFAGR@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A45FD05.3B4D6F0E at ix.netcom.com>, at 04:05:42 on Sat, 27 Jun 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>far too often, the regs in place are superseded by new regs that are 
>usually, but not always worse then the original regs, and declared by 
>some entity or group of folks claiming that they are the "Right Regs".

That's why we must always be vigilant.

>  I also see that your Domain Names DNS doesn't exactly follow
>the IETF "Regs"

I subcontract that to my ISP.

"Your" DNS [netcom.com] apparently shows several 'Critical Errors' (mine 
only had 'Warnings'), which just shows how difficult this all is.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Jun 29 06:25:17 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:25:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN might name former DHS cybersecurity
 bossitspresident?
In-Reply-To: <4A453A08.3AC2A675@ix.netcom.com>
References: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <sHzB0eWUGLRKFAeT@perry.co.uk> <4A453A08.3AC2A675@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <qaWQj3rNaJSKFAmS@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A453A08.3AC2A675 at ix.netcom.com>, at 14:13:44 on Fri, 26 Jun 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>  Indeed I believe your right that cybersecurity is outside the law.

You've missed a "not" there. I said:

   "it's unhelpful to pretend that 'cyberspace' is outside the law".

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jun 29 19:17:55 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:17:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] former DHS cybersecurity boss as a president
In-Reply-To: <qaWQj3rNaJSKFAmS@perry.co.uk>
References: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <sHzB0eWUGLRKFAeT@perry.co.uk>
 <4A453A08.3AC2A675@ix.netcom.com>
 <qaWQj3rNaJSKFAmS@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20090629231758.D49F1CF06E@smtp3.electricembers.net>

The choice of Rod Beckerstrom as an ICANN CEO made me to study 
carefully the conclusion of the book he coauthored "the starfish and 
the spider". This books teaches far more on Rod abilities than just 
branding him has ex-US cyberscurity.

Rod demonstrates an excellent command of the neteconomy in a 
decentralized money-profit oriented perspective, and of the new 
corporate format and start-up market (the product is the start-up). 
Moreover, he has also partly identified the way to domesticate 
Internet activists like this list. His predecessors did it 
intuitively. He has documented it (last chapters).

It will be tiring, boring, ... as usual to oppose ICANN; but may be 
will it be more demanding. Probably many will listen to him. A good 
choice to protect the status-quo.
jfc


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

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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Mon Jun 29 22:51:10 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:51:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] former DHS cybersecurity boss as a president
In-Reply-To: <20090629231758.D49F1CF06E@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <601439.83735.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <sHzB0eWUGLRKFAeT@perry.co.uk> <4A453A08.3AC2A675@ix.netcom.com>
	 <qaWQj3rNaJSKFAmS@perry.co.uk>
	 <20090629231758.D49F1CF06E@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906291951u685d01dm6621ed4beb0611ec@mail.gmail.com>

He's a compromise candidate.  But he is going to suffer from what every
other president has suffered from.  He will have to fight the beast while he
continues the priest hood of ICANN.  It's not a pretty sight.

Also - what appears to be an interesting reversal.  He supports the JPA be
continued.  This is a major reversal in ICANN policy I welcome.  The writing
was on the wall.  I think Beckstrom has a good sense of humor.  His
reasoning for favoring the continuation of the JPA "simply because the
current ICANN setup is working out so well"  shows us he has a sense of
humor.

Beckstrom is the U.S. governments man on the inside.  He's here to crack the
whip.  He may yet dismantle ICANN.  Let's get real here - ICANN is a base of
fools.  Someone recently called them something short of a scam.  Fools and
national security don't go together,

anyway - thats my two cents.

regards
joe baptista

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:17 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> The choice of Rod Beckerstrom as an ICANN CEO made me to study carefully
> the conclusion of the book he coauthored "the starfish and the spider". This
> books teaches far more on Rod abilities than just branding him has ex-US
> cyberscurity.
>
> Rod demonstrates an excellent command of the neteconomy in a decentralized
> money-profit oriented perspective, and of the new corporate format and
> start-up market (the product is the start-up). Moreover, he has also partly
> identified the way to domesticate Internet activists like this list. His
> predecessors did it intuitively. He has documented it (last chapters).
>
> It will be tiring, boring, ... as usual to oppose ICANN; but may be will it
> be more demanding. Probably many will listen to him. A good choice to
> protect the status-quo.
> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
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/20090629/a1729d75/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