From bnkuerbi at syr.edu  Tue Mar 31 17:07:37 2009
From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:07:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project
 Headlines
In-Reply-To: <MAIL04czNLRzrsGlk70000a57fe@mail04.feedblitz.com>
References: <MAIL04czNLRzrsGlk70000a57fe@mail04.feedblitz.com>
Message-ID: <28cfc1a40903311407u3f379d35mc64268c29644c486@mail.gmail.com>

FYI.

Best,

Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internet Governance Project <info at internetgovernance.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Subject: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
To: bkuerbis


 [image: Internet Governance Project]

March 30, 2009

ARIN's Board declares an emergency <#12058d2ca59724b0_0>
RIPE: Existing Internet community policy channels and processes
insufficient<#12058d2ca59724b0_1>
Norway claims agreement on "net neutrality" <#12058d2ca59724b0_2>
Cyber-safety, or global censorship? <#12058d2ca59724b0_3>
WIPO the cybersquatter <#12058d2ca59724b0_4>
Search Internet Governance Project
Headlines<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Search=175425>
------------------------------
ARIN's Board declares an emergency
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=38709529&f=175425&u=11355457>

At ARIN, yet another intense controversy is swirling around the problem of
IPv4 address transfers. At its 18 March 2009 meeting, the Board declared an
emergency and revised a transfer policy that we all thought it had adopted a
month earlier. The Board explained the new draft policy,
2009-1<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html>,
with the statement, "The Board has been concerned for some time that the
lack of a liberalized transfer policy would create legal risk: that we had
not provided a mechanism to improve the efficient utilization of
previously-allocated resources, and that this risk was significant enough to
jeopardize ARIN’s ability to fulfill its stewardship mission."
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;8727790;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/J4XeyhJ259M/4138389.html;ARIN%27s+Board+declares+an+emergency;1388165>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;8727790;Main+Page;ARIN%27s+Board+declares+an+emergency;1388165>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fJ4XeyhJ259M%2f4138389.html&src=5>•

 RIPE: Existing Internet community policy channels and processes
insufficient <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=38681581&f=175425&u=11355457>

RIPE's Enhanced Cooperation Task
Force<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/cooperation/index.html>has
released a
report<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/coop-report.html>,
calling for the establishment of a standing working group to discuss
improving coordination and communication between the Internet community and
public sectors on Internet policy matters. The report states it is "clear
that the conventional channels and processes of the Internet community are
not, of themselves, sufficient to meet the demands of enhanced cooperation."
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;8727790;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/fLFZTAQ4QYE/4134905.html;RIPE:+Existing+Internet+community+policy+channels+and+processes+insufficient;1388165>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;8727790;Main+Page%3BRIPE:+Existing+Internet+community+policy+channels+and+processes+insufficient;1388165>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2ffLFZTAQ4QYE%2f4134905.html&src=5>•

 Norway claims agreement on "net neutrality"
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=38648425&f=175425&u=11355457>

The Consumer Council of Norway, the Consumer Ombudsman, Norwegian Internet
service providers and the Norwegian regulatory authority have come to an
agreement on joint guidelines for net
neutrality<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2009/historic_agreement_on_net_neutrality>.
[Note: An earlier version of this post made some assertions based on the
understanding that the Norway blocking list was compulsory, which we have
learned is not true.]
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;8727790;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/yQTV3vqpXn4/4133397.html;Norway+claims+agreement+on+%22net+neutrality%22;1388165>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;8727790;Main+Page;Norway+claims+agreement+on+%22net+neutrality%22;1388165>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fyQTV3vqpXn4%2f4133397.html&src=5>•

 Cyber-safety, or global censorship?
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=38557915&f=175425&u=11355457>

ICANN has encouraged new constituencies to get involved in the GNSO. Now it
has got what it asked for. This month, Cheryl Preston filed a petition with
ICANN<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety>to
form a new “Cyber-safety Constituency.” It turns out that this
constituency is nothing more than an extension of the CP80
Foundation<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://www.cp80.org>.
CP80 is devoted to systematic, global censorship of internet content in
order to eradicate pornography.
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;8727790;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/sf2-1vJc7KU/4125801.html;Cyber-safety,+or+global+censorship?;1388165>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;8727790;Main+Page;Cyber-safety,+or+global+censorship?;1388165>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fsf2-1vJc7KU%2f4125801.html&src=5>•

 WIPO the cybersquatter
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=38424802&f=175425&u=11355457>

The World Intellectual Property
Organization<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/175425/11355457/http://wipo.int>,
which operates the dominant domain name - trademark dispute resolution
service, has ripped off someone else's trademark with a domain name
registration. The discovery was made by US patent and trademark lawyer John
Berryhill, known for defending domain name registrants against UDRP claims.
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;8727790;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/bTfMCFCIHbI/4112753.html;WIPO+the+cybersquatter;1388165>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;8727790;Main+Page;WIPO+the+cybersquatter;1388165>•
<http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fbTfMCFCIHbI%2f4112753.html&src=5>•


   ------------------------------
*Click here to safely unsubscribe
now<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_MTEzNTU0NTd8MTc1NDI1fGJrdWVyYmlzQHR3Y255LnJyLmNvbXwxMzg4MTY1_>from
"Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change
subscription settings<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Subscriptions=175425>
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f>*
------------------------------
------------------------------
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz<http://www.feedblitz.com>,
LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090331/64051390/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  1 06:11:18 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:41:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
Message-ID: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>

Hi All,

I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but 
thought will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG 
meeting right away. Other who attended may add their comments.

Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants 
that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for 
dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some 
possibilities of moving forward on them. This directly connects to the 
sentiment that was prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it 
appears that there is general agreement to take some issues that have 
greater level of agreement to 'round tables' for possible recommendation 
making. Two issues that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) 
child protection and (2) disability related access issues (these were 
mentioned in the open consultation but the proposal was developed 
further in the MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the 
round table format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and 
this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this 
new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting.

On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it 
appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external 
evaluation.  It seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no 
decision on this, and this is only my impression. Others may contribute 
theirs. The meeting of IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in 
favour of seeking an quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on 
various parametres of participation, impact/ output etc, and we can 
further develop this proposal.

Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move 
forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may 
consider as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes 
seemed to got applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate 
on whether 'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit 
theme to discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next 
meeting's structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on 
others. The first draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it 
is important to watch out for it.

Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in 
the open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and 
principles' as the overall theme for the next IGF received support from 
many civil society participants. Reps from at least two governments  - 
Swiss and El Salvador - also supported this theme. This is encouraging. 
However no rep from the technical community and the private sector 
expressed support. We may need them to support this proposal. During the 
MAG however some state reps were not too keen on making the above as the 
overall theme. There was also a specific objection to using the term 
'internet rights' which may look like meaning there was a new and 
accepted category of rights. I have now, on the MAG email list, proposed 
that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or 'an rights based 
approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we need to 
canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also seek 
the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot 
get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session 
discussion on it.

I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open 
architecture of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion 
did not go far. we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot 
of discussion around privacy issues and how they should be framed for a 
discussion at the next IGF.

I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key 
part of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this 
issue and its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look 
at broadband more and more as a key social infrastructure, and 
investments into it from the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should 
be taken up as a key 'access' issue at the IGF. I found some key members 
supporting this idea, and I think it is an interesting one to explore 
further.

Thanks

Parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090301/a57ae01e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Mar  1 08:10:49 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:10:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <49AA8959.6080609@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Parminder schrieb:
> There was a lot of discussion around privacy issues and how they should
> be framed for a discussion at the next IGF.

Nice to hear. A few questions:

Who raised this? In which direction was it argued? Do you see any chance
of using privacy as an example to illustrate what a rights-based approach
to the internet could mean?

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Sun Mar  1 08:37:25 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:37:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903010537w2e9b7c30ge66f46b843c020fd@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Parminder for this feedback. So, I about two issues mentioned , I
think this option is also avalaible.But about the term "internet rights",
since we use this term I was in confusion and if we say like you suggest
"Internet and Rights", it's clear in mind.

Baudouin

2009/3/1 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

> Hi All,
>
> I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but thought
> will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG meeting
> right away. Other who attended may add their comments.
>
> Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants
> that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for dummies,
> and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some possibilities of
> moving forward on them. This directly connects to the sentiment that was
> prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is
> general agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement
> to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues that seem
> to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection and (2) disability
> related access issues (these were mentioned in the open consultation but the
> proposal was developed further in the MAG meeting). However the final
> decision on either the round table format or the issues to be taken up has
> not been taken, and this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May.
> However, it is this new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF
> meeting.
>
> On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it
> appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external evaluation.  It
> seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no decision on this,
> and this is only my impression. Others may contribute theirs. The meeting of
> IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in favour of seeking an
> quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on various parametres of
> participation, impact/ output etc, and we can further develop this proposal.
>
>
> Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move
> forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may consider
> as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes seemed to got
> applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate on whether
> 'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit theme to
> discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next meeting's
> structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on others. The first
> draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it is important to watch
> out for it.
>
> Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in the
> open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and principles' as
> the overall theme for the next IGF received support from many civil society
> participants. Reps from at least two governments  - Swiss and El Salvador -
> also supported this theme. This is encouraging. However no rep from the
> technical community and the private sector expressed support. We may need
> them to support this proposal. During the MAG however some state reps were
> not too keen on making the above as the overall theme. There was also a
> specific objection to using the term 'internet rights' which may look like
> meaning there was a new and accepted category of rights. I have now, on the
> MAG email list, proposed that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or
> 'an rights based approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we
> need to canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also
> seek the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot
> get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session
> discussion on it.
>
> I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open architecture
> of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion did not go far.
> we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot of discussion around
> privacy issues and how they should be framed for a discussion at the next
> IGF.
>
> I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key part
> of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this issue and
> its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look at broadband
> more and more as a key social infrastructure, and investments into it from
> the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should be taken up as a key 'access'
> issue at the IGF. I found some key members supporting this idea, and I think
> it is an interesting one to explore further.
>
> Thanks
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090301/3afb1db4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sun Mar  1 08:54:59 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun,  1 Mar 2009 05:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: 49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net
Message-ID: <sympa.1235915383.63155.558@lists.cpsr.org>

Thank You Parminder,

In referance to: 
[ Internationalization	of IG (or Core Internet Resource management)]

ref.;
> Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move forward
in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may consider as,
contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes seemed to got applied,
and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate on whether
'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit theme to discuss.
This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next meeting's structure and
agenda not only on this theme but also on others. The first draft of the
program paper should be soon out, and it is important to watch out for it.

-

What were the casting "polarized" views? and brought by whom?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Mar  1 13:03:08 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:03:08 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1235915383.63155.558@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1235915383.63155.558@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <YkZxvwNc3sqJFAfb@perry.co.uk>

In message <sympa.1235915383.63155.558 at lists.cpsr.org>, at 05:54:59 on 
Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> writes

>What were the casting "polarized" views? and brought by whom?

I believe the MAG meeting is held under "Chatham House Rules", and 
therefore it's not permitted for the source of individual comments to be 
identified (but the comments themselves can be).
-- 
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  Sun Mar  1 13:48:55 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:48:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <YkZxvwNc3sqJFAfb@perry.co.uk>
References: <sympa.1235915383.63155.558@lists.cpsr.org>
 <YkZxvwNc3sqJFAfb@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <lSLeCQTXitqJFAr+@perry.co.uk>

In message <YkZxvwNc3sqJFAfb at perry.co.uk>, at 18:03:08 on Sun, 1 Mar 
2009, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> writes
>I believe the MAG meeting is held under "Chatham House Rules", and 
>therefore it's not permitted for the source of individual comments to 
>be identified (but the comments themselves can be).

sorry, that should have said   ... can be reported).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sun Mar  1 16:25:11 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun,  1 Mar 2009 13:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: lSLeCQTXitqJFAr+@perry.co.uk
Message-ID: <sympa.1235942426.63155.161@lists.cpsr.org>

Fair enough Roland,

Parminder,

In referance to  Internationalization  of IG (or Core Internet Resource
management):

>"... a very polarized debate on whether
'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit theme to discuss 
..." 

How many people were 'Of the Inner-UN System' 
and 
how many people were 'Not-Of the UN System' ?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  1 17:21:55 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:21:55 +1100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>

Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary. Although I wasn't present at the
MAG part of proceedings I did hear afterwards that it was dominated, as you
say, by a debate on "internationalization of CIR" which many found either
confusing or annoying.

 

On the open consultations - the only thing I would add to was the rather
interesting discussion on defining various issues according to their level
of maturity, and that the level of maturity might help determine the format
of the treatment of these issues - eg more mature issues would be treated in
different formats. I am not sure how agreement on an issues matrix would
ever be reached, but the concept was interesting.

 

Also I wonder if anyone has further thoughts on the review (or consultation,
or whatever process). I agree that the ground seemed to shift here a little
- wheras the topic in the agenda was a review, it was later pointed out that
in fact no review was called for, only a consultation with forum
participants. It also became clear - particularly after China's comments -
that the decision is for the Secretary General and probably the UN  General
Assembly, which might of course be taken with consideration to factors other
than those raised by IGF. While it was clear that the IGF Forum participants
would generally favour continuance, and that would include the parts of
governments who attend IGF, other submissions to the General Assembly may
carry different observations or recommendations and the government reps who
go to GA might not even know the people who attend IGF or their opinions on
the matter.

 

So this process needs careful watching as we go forward. As we agreed at our
meeting, a prime task for us over coming months is to monitor developments
in this area and react accordingly.

 

One small extra addition - at our meeting of members present, we agreed to
endorse Wolfgang, Bill Drake, and the APC representative as our
representatives for the ITU Policy Forum if they are attending. That gives
us formal involvement.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 01 March 2009 22:11
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

 

Hi All,

I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but thought
will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG meeting
right away. Other who attended may add their comments. 

Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants
that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for dummies,
and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some possibilities of
moving forward on them. This directly connects to the sentiment that was
prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is
general agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement
to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues that seem
to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection and (2) disability
related access issues (these were mentioned in the open consultation but the
proposal was developed further in the MAG meeting). However the final
decision on either the round table format or the issues to be taken up has
not been taken, and this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May.
However, it is this new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF
meeting. 

On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it
appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external evaluation.  It
seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no decision on this,
and this is only my impression. Others may contribute theirs. The meeting of
IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in favour of seeking an
quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on various parametres of
participation, impact/ output etc, and we can further develop this proposal.


Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move
forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may consider
as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes seemed to got
applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate on whether
'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit theme to
discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next meeting's
structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on others. The first
draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it is important to watch
out for it.

Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in the
open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and principles' as
the overall theme for the next IGF received support from many civil society
participants. Reps from at least two governments  - Swiss and El Salvador -
also supported this theme. This is encouraging. However no rep from the
technical community and the private sector expressed support. We may need
them to support this proposal. During the MAG however some state reps were
not too keen on making the above as the overall theme. There was also a
specific objection to using the term 'internet rights' which may look like
meaning there was a new and accepted category of rights. I have now, on the
MAG email list, proposed that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or
'an rights based approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we
need to canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also
seek the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot
get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session
discussion on it. 

I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open architecture
of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion did not go far.
we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot of discussion around
privacy issues and how they should be framed for a discussion at the next
IGF. 

I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key part
of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this issue and
its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look at broadband
more and more as a key social infrastructure, and investments into it from
the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should be taken up as a key 'access'
issue at the IGF. I found some key members supporting this idea, and I think
it is an interesting one to explore further. 

Thanks

Parminder 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090302/c9242d29/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 00:54:38 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:54:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
	 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/2/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary. Although I wasn’t present at the
> MAG part of proceedings I did hear afterwards that it was dominated, as you
> say, by a debate on “internationalization of CIR” which many found either
> confusing or annoying.

What's always been confusing and a bit annoying to me is that we are
focusing on the wrong forum for this issue.

The names and numbers are done by the IANA, so if we want to make
these "CIRs" more "international" in any way whatsoever, we need to
discuss this in Mexico City this week, NOT in Geneva last week.

Of course, if one wants to talk about it without any result, then the
IGF is the place....if you want to get smt done, ICANN is the forum!

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Mar  2 05:56:21 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:56:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
08:54:38 on Mon, 2 Mar 2009, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>> Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary. Although I wasn’t present at the
>> MAG part of proceedings I did hear afterwards that it was dominated, as you
>> say, by a debate on “internationalization of CIR” which many found either
>> confusing or annoying.
>
>What's always been confusing and a bit annoying to me is that we are
>focusing on the wrong forum for this issue.
>
>The names and numbers are done by the IANA,

erm, the names are done by ICANN, and I'm not sure (without the benefit 
of an official report from the MAG meeting, not yet available) what an 
internationalised "number" is - although I am aware that RIRs receive 
applications (which they successfully deal with) in multiple languages 
and scripts.

>so if we want to make these "CIRs" more "international" in any way 
>whatsoever, we need to discuss this in Mexico City this week, NOT in 
>Geneva last week.

I was under the impression that the IGF was supposed to be 
"non-duplicative", and Nitin re-emphasised that last week.

To that extent (and repeating the disclaimer about the MAG report, 
above) it's true that much (most, even) of this week's proceedings in 
Mexico City seem to be about either IDNs, or associated issues such as 
reserving [some definition of] geographic names in new gTLDs.

Or maybe I'm just repeating one half of the "polarised debate", and look 
forward to hearing the other half.
-- 
Roland Perry
in Mexico City this week, in Geneva (public days) last week.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 06:25:55 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:25:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
References: <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
Message-ID: <49ABC243.3010503@wzb.eu>



Ian Peter wrote:
> Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary. Although I wasn’t present at 
> the MAG part of proceedings I did hear afterwards that it was dominated, 
> as you say, by a debate on “internationalization of CIR” which many 
> found either confusing or annoying.

Hi, here are some notes in addition to what Parminder wrote:

I would say that the second day was dominated by a somewhat odd 
discussion about "internationalization of CIR". Odd, because quite a few 
contributions focussed on the issue whether or not certain wordings are 
backed by the Tunis Agenda.

However, on the first day we discussed various other issues, for example 
if it makes sense to use categories such as "mature", "contenious" and 
"new" to assign specific meeting or discussion formats to the various 
topics on the IGF agenda.

Access was also subject to lengthy discussions. Many MAG members thought 
  that access should be on the agenda again, despite the fact that at 
the end of the Hyderabad meeting many access experts stated that nothing 
new  can be expected from discussing access in a broad main session 
fashion. Accordingly the question discussed in the MAG meeting was how 
we could design a main session on access in more specific terms.

While there is a general willingness to move towards action in certain 
areas, particularly those mentioned by Parminder, it is not quite clear 
what this means and I would suspect that the intention of transforming 
debate into action could lead to further controversies. Not all MAG 
members were excited about the prospect of moving beyond mere discussion.

Regarding's Ralf's question on privacy, this issue was broad up by 
several people. A general interest focussed on privacy issues relating 
to social networking. Information ownership and the right of 
informational self-determiniation were brought up several times (this 
should also be in the transcript of open consulation). Some MAG members 
thought that privacy should be discussed in the context of Internet 
security, others objected to such a framing. However, I don't recall a 
specific link between the rights and principals proposal and the issue 
of privacy.

Judging from the February meeting, I would expect a main session 
focussing on various dimensions of privacy. However, this could well 
change again at the May meeting, which should make some final decisions 
regarding the broad outline of the next IGF's agenda.

Another issue we discussed was the proposal to have a keynote speaker or 
a keynote panel who/which would be asked, for example, to create the 
bridge between the opening ceremony and the overall topic of this year's 
IGF. We couldn't really find agreement on the merits of such a keynote 
format. I am sure this will be again on the agenda of the May meeting.

jeanette

> 
>  
> 
> On the open consultations – the only thing I would add to was the rather 
> interesting discussion on defining various issues according to their 
> level of maturity, and that the level of maturity might help determine 
> the format of the treatment of these issues – eg more mature issues 
> would be treated in different formats. I am not sure how agreement on an 
> issues matrix would ever be reached, but the concept was interesting.
> 
>  
> 
> Also I wonder if anyone has further thoughts on the review (or 
> consultation, or whatever process). I agree that the ground seemed to 
> shift here a little – wheras the topic in the agenda was a review, it 
> was later pointed out that in fact no review was called for, only a 
> consultation with forum participants. It also became clear – 
> particularly after China’s comments – that the decision is for the 
> Secretary General and probably the UN  General Assembly, which might of 
> course be taken with consideration to factors other than those raised by 
> IGF. While it was clear that the IGF Forum participants would generally 
> favour continuance, and that would include the parts of governments who 
> attend IGF, other submissions to the General Assembly may carry 
> different observations or recommendations and the government reps who go 
> to GA might not even know the people who attend IGF or their opinions on 
> the matter.
> 
>  
> 
> So this process needs careful watching as we go forward. As we agreed at 
> our meeting, a prime task for us over coming months is to monitor 
> developments in this area and react accordingly.
> 
>  
> 
> One small extra addition – at our meeting of members present, we agreed 
> to endorse Wolfgang, Bill Drake, and the APC representative as our 
> representatives for the ITU Policy Forum if they are attending. That 
> gives us formal involvement.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> PO Box 429
> 
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> 
> Australia
> 
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> 
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* 01 March 2009 22:11
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
> 
>  
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but 
> thought will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG 
> meeting right away. Other who attended may add their comments.
> 
> Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants 
> that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for 
> dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some 
> possibilities of moving forward on them. This directly connects to the 
> sentiment that was prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it 
> appears that there is general agreement to take some issues that have 
> greater level of agreement to 'round tables' for possible recommendation 
> making. Two issues that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) 
> child protection and (2) disability related access issues (these were 
> mentioned in the open consultation but the proposal was developed 
> further in the MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the 
> round table format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and 
> this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this 
> new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting.
> 
> On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it 
> appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external 
> evaluation.  It seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no 
> decision on this, and this is only my impression. Others may contribute 
> theirs. The meeting of IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in 
> favour of seeking an quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on 
> various parametres of participation, impact/ output etc, and we can 
> further develop this proposal.
> 
> Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move 
> forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may 
> consider as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes 
> seemed to got applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate 
> on whether 'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit 
> theme to discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next 
> meeting's structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on 
> others. The first draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it 
> is important to watch out for it.
> 
> Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in 
> the open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and 
> principles' as the overall theme for the next IGF received support from 
> many civil society participants. Reps from at least two governments  - 
> Swiss and El Salvador - also supported this theme. This is encouraging. 
> However no rep from the technical community and the private sector 
> expressed support. We may need them to support this proposal. During the 
> MAG however some state reps were not too keen on making the above as the 
> overall theme. There was also a specific objection to using the term 
> 'internet rights' which may look like meaning there was a new and 
> accepted category of rights. I have now, on the MAG email list, proposed 
> that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or 'an rights based 
> approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we need to 
> canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also seek 
> the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot 
> get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session 
> discussion on it.
> 
> I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open 
> architecture of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion 
> did not go far. we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot 
> of discussion around privacy issues and how they should be framed for a 
> discussion at the next IGF.
> 
> I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key 
> part of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this 
> issue and its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look 
> at broadband more and more as a key social infrastructure, and 
> investments into it from the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should 
> be taken up as a key 'access' issue at the IGF. I found some key members 
> supporting this idea, and I think it is an interesting one to explore 
> further.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Mar  2 08:29:35 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:29:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <FCB9B475-4741-4DE6-AE04-33BDC28A5E10@ras.eu.org>

Hi Parminder and all,

Thanks for this feedback. I've some questions, however:

Le 1 mars 09 à 12:11, Parminder a écrit :

> Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the  
> participants that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101,  
> or a IGF for dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive  
> issues, with some possibilities of moving forward on them. This  
> directly connects to the sentiment that was prevalent in the  
> closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is general  
> agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement  
> to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues  
> that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection  
> and (2) disability related access issues (these were mentioned in  
> the open consultation but the proposal was developed further in the  
> MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the round table  
> format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and this  
> will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this  
> new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting.

What does a 'greater level of agreement' exactly mean? Among whom?  
The 3-6 people who participated in 2-3 workshops on a given theme?
How is this agreement measured? Is there at least any synthesis of  
the discussions that could show such an agreement (or disagreement)  
on a given issue?
Furthermore, agreement on what, exactly? On the fact that children  
should be protected, or that access should take into account people  
with disabilities? Who could be against that?

Yes, my questions are purely rhetorical. But here is a true one: how  
it comes that a 'sentiment' (whose sentiment, BTW?) is used, in such  
an arena, to affirm that an issue has reached any agreement? There is  
a missing step here, which is that a synthesis of discussions should  
be produced on a given issue, providing the results on how it should  
be addressed, then that this synthesis be opened to comments and  
suggestions, and only then we could identify whether or not there is  
an agreement, an on what.

Let's, at least, take this IGF 'conversation' from an oral informal  
conversation expressing sentiments to a written conversation relying  
on (accountable) arguments..

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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  2 09:22:18 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:22:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


For those of us who were not in Geneva, it would help to have a more objective recounting of the debate on "internationalization" of CIR. What issues and proposals were raised and what were the responses? Substance please, not conclusory judgments. There is not much benefit from an emotional assessment of something as "confusing" or "annoying". 

I can, however, see rampant confusion in these comments:

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I'm not sure (without the benefit
> of an official report from the MAG meeting, not yet available) what an
> internationalised "number" is - although I am aware that RIRs receive
> applications (which they successfully deal with) in multiple languages
> and scripts.

What is or might be internationalized is the governance process or authority, not the numbers themselves. 

> I was under the impression that the IGF was supposed to be
> "non-duplicative", and Nitin re-emphasised that last week.

FYI, the people who want the IGF to be "non-duplicative" are the people who want it to go away. In other words, "non-duplication" becomes a clever way of saying, "leave the status quo alone, if any existing institution deals with any internet governance issue in any way, then IGF can't touch it." Since there is NO Internet governance issue that isn't already dealt with in some fashion by some other existing international or national entity, this is an attempt to neutralize the IGF. 

Most people who take the IGF seriously think that it should be able to assess and evaluate all existing IG institutions and processes. Of course this does not mean it attempts to "take over" those responsibilities or to duplicate their work, it simply means that the Forum is an independent deliberative capacity that can provide perspective and evaluation of other IG processes. If IGF can't do that, what can it do? If no one should do that, how do we get a holistic view of how IG is working? 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 10:21:34 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:21:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 
09:22:18 on Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> writes
>
>For those of us who were not in Geneva, it would help to have a more 
>objective recounting of the debate on "internationalization" of CIR. 
>What issues and proposals were raised and what were the responses? 
>Substance please, not conclusory judgments. There is not much benefit 
>from an emotional assessment of something as "confusing" or "annoying".
>
>I can, however, see rampant confusion in these comments:
>
>> -----Original Message-----

>Since there is NO Internet governance issue that isn't already dealt 
>with in some fashion by some other existing international or national 
>entity, this is an attempt to neutralize the IGF.

It's the "or national" I have a disagreement with - because the IGF is a 
"Worldwide" organisation (to avoid potential confusion using the term 
"International"). It can therefore have a role when the only existing 
entities are national (or a small-multiple-multi-national).

>Most people who take the IGF seriously think that it should be able to 
>assess and evaluate all existing IG institutions and processes. Of 
>course this does not mean it attempts to "take over" those 
>responsibilities or to duplicate their work, it simply means that the 
>Forum is an independent deliberative capacity that can provide 
>perspective and evaluation of other IG processes.

The theme that I took away from the public meetings last week was that 
the IGF should work in those areas where an existing worldwide 
*solution* to a governance "issue" isn't already covered. As far as I 
know, for example, there isn't a worldwide anti-spam or anti-phishing 
agency, so that would be within remit to discuss and attempt to combine 
existing knowledge and skills.
-- 
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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Mar  2 10:38:16 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:38:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org>


Le 2 mars 09 à 16:21, Roland Perry a écrit :
> The theme that I took away from the public meetings last week was  
> that the IGF should work in those areas where an existing worldwide  
> *solution* to a governance "issue" isn't already covered. As far as  
> I know, for example, there isn't a worldwide anti-spam or anti- 
> phishing agency, so that would be within remit to discuss and  
> attempt to combine existing knowledge and skills.

There is, e.g., the London Action Plan (http:// 
www.londonactionplan.org/), which describes itself as "international  
spam enforcement network". Not to mention that UN agencies and other  
arenas are also working on these issues.

And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and  
everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well  
understood, the IGF is eager to address it, and on top of this has  
the 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF circles.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 10:56:09 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:56:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu>




> And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and 
> everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well 
> understood, the IGF is eager to address it, 

It is not that _the_ IGF is eager to adress it. There were at each IGF 
meeting multiple workshops organized on this issue and almost non of the 
organizers was willing to merge with other organizers. According to 
those who attended these workshops, there is a lot of agreement and not 
much new stuff coming up at the moment. Controversies persist around the 
question of what actually constitutes child _protection_.
There was a strong sense at Hyderabad and at the public consultation and 
at the MAG meeting that a few specific topics have reached a point where 
no new insights can be gained by organizing yet another workshop or main 
session to adress them. Instead, they are ready for some form of 
outcome, be it in the form recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, 
action lines or whatever.

The IGF provides the space or container to produce any such outcomes.

jeanette


and on top of this has the
> 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF 
> circles.____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 11:04:12 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:04:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org>

There is something beyond my understanding here (sorry!). How could  
it be acknowledged that "Controversies persist around the question of  
what actually constitutes child _protection_" (i.e. people don't even  
agree on what is the topic about) and, at the same time, be decided  
(or felt) that these topics "are ready for some form of outcome, be  
it in the form recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, action  
lines or whatever"?

Meryem

Le 2 mars 09 à 16:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

>> And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and  
>> everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well  
>> understood, the IGF is eager to address it,
>
> It is not that _the_ IGF is eager to adress it. There were at each  
> IGF meeting multiple workshops organized on this issue and almost  
> non of the organizers was willing to merge with other organizers.  
> According to those who attended these workshops, there is a lot of  
> agreement and not much new stuff coming up at the moment.  
> Controversies persist around the question of what actually  
> constitutes child _protection_.
> There was a strong sense at Hyderabad and at the public  
> consultation and at the MAG meeting that a few specific topics have  
> reached a point where no new insights can be gained by organizing  
> yet another workshop or main session to adress them. Instead, they  
> are ready for some form of outcome, be it in the form  
> recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, action lines or whatever.
>
> The IGF provides the space or container to produce any such outcomes.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> and on top of this has the
>> 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF  
>> circles.____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 11:09:11 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:09:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu> <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>

Sorry if I wasn't clear. There seems to be a difference between debates 
about child pornography and child protection. The latter is subject to 
controversies while the first is mentioned as an example for a topic 
ready for more outcome oriented discussion formats such as Round Tables.
jeanette


Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> There is something beyond my understanding here (sorry!). How could it 
> be acknowledged that "Controversies persist around the question of what 
> actually constitutes child _protection_" (i.e. people don't even agree 
> on what is the topic about) and, at the same time, be decided (or felt) 
> that these topics "are ready for some form of outcome, be it in the form 
> recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, action lines or whatever"?
> 
> Meryem
> 
> Le 2 mars 09 à 16:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
>>> And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and 
>>> everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well 
>>> understood, the IGF is eager to address it,
>>
>> It is not that _the_ IGF is eager to adress it. There were at each IGF 
>> meeting multiple workshops organized on this issue and almost non of 
>> the organizers was willing to merge with other organizers. According 
>> to those who attended these workshops, there is a lot of agreement and 
>> not much new stuff coming up at the moment. Controversies persist 
>> around the question of what actually constitutes child _protection_.
>> There was a strong sense at Hyderabad and at the public consultation 
>> and at the MAG meeting that a few specific topics have reached a point 
>> where no new insights can be gained by organizing yet another workshop 
>> or main session to adress them. Instead, they are ready for some form 
>> of outcome, be it in the form recommendations, proposed codes of 
>> conducts, action lines or whatever.
>>
>> The IGF provides the space or container to produce any such outcomes.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> and on top of this has the
>>> 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF 
>>> circles.____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Mon Mar  2 11:25:59 2009
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:25:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu> <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org> <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20090302162559.GA18549@hamsu.tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:09:11PM +0000, Jeanette Hofmann (jeanette at wzb.eu) wrote:

> Sorry if I wasn't clear. There seems to be a difference between debates  
> about child pornography and child protection. The latter is subject to  
> controversies while the first is mentioned as an example for a topic  
> ready for more outcome oriented discussion formats such as Round Tables.

I must point out that even child pornography is still subject to
some controversies, both about what the term covers -- does it include
adults looking like children and animation -- and how to best tackle it
-- in particular, does net filtering do more harm than good.

A consensus on the subject seems unlikely, unless it is narrowed down
enough to exclude those points (perhaps justifiable on the grounds that 
they can't really be debated without going into child protection).

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Mar  2 11:22:44 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:22:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>	 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49AC07D4.1050800@rits.org.br>

Grande Ian,

McTim wrote:
> On 3/2/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
[...]
> What's always been confusing and a bit annoying to me is that we are
> focusing on the wrong forum for this issue.
> 
> The names and numbers are done by the IANA, so if we want to make
> these "CIRs" more "international" in any way whatsoever, we need to
> discuss this in Mexico City this week, NOT in Geneva last week.
> 
> Of course, if one wants to talk about it without any result, then the
> IGF is the place....if you want to get smt done, ICANN is the forum!
> 

But then, aren't all other themes in the same situation? The point is
not that there are technical or other fora for trying to advance the
issue, but that, if we believe a change is needed, we need to bring up
the issue in every forum we are involved with -- including the IGF, even
if it resembles a tea party by old literary academicians as far as
results are concerned.

frt rgds

--c.a.

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor --- Rits
--------------------------------------------------
www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br www.ritsnet.org.br
--------------------------------------------------

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Mar  2 11:28:54 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:28:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>
 <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <HjuGeFhGlArJFAVX@perry.co.uk>

In message <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541 at ras.eu.org>, at 
16:38:16 on Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 
writes
>> The theme that I took away from the public meetings last week was 
>>that the IGF should work in those areas where an existing worldwide 
>>*solution* to a governance "issue" isn't already covered. As far as I 
>>know, for example, there isn't a worldwide anti-spam or anti- phishing 
>>agency, so that would be within remit to discuss and attempt to 
>>combine existing knowledge and skills.
>
>There is, e.g., the London Action Plan (http:// 
>www.londonactionplan.org/), which describes itself as "international 
>spam enforcement network". Not to mention that UN agencies and other 
>arenas are also working on these issues.

I would characterise LAP as a (worthwile, clearly) umbrella 
organisation, rather than a worldwide policy setting forum (which would 
require all the members to agree to implement privacy laws in their 
country using a model somewhat like ratification of the Cybercrime 
Convention), or an enforcement agency with staff seconded to it running 
a reporting hotline, taking down botnets etc.

>And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and 
>everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well 
>understood, the IGF is eager to address it,

Eagerness, in this instance, is something exhibited by would-be workshop 
organisers.

>and on top of this has  the 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in 
>IGF circles.

The sentiment (not mine, the forum's), if I read it correctly, is that 
there's no point in more meetings simply to express agreement.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Mar  2 11:32:32 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:32:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20090302162559.GA18549@hamsu.tarvainen.info>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu> <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org> <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu> <20090302162559.GA18549@hamsu.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <49AC0A20.5000805@wzb.eu>

Good point. It became quickly clear to everyone that moving from mere 
debate to a stronger focus on output comes at a prize. It requires a 
very narrow focus, narrow to a degree where the language might border on 
the technocratic. As long as there is diversity in topics and discussion 
formats, that should be ok. The important thing in my mind is that we 
start experimenting with various ways of handling topics.
jeanette


Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:09:11PM +0000, Jeanette Hofmann (jeanette at wzb.eu) wrote:
> 
>> Sorry if I wasn't clear. There seems to be a difference between debates  
>> about child pornography and child protection. The latter is subject to  
>> controversies while the first is mentioned as an example for a topic  
>> ready for more outcome oriented discussion formats such as Round Tables.
> 
> I must point out that even child pornography is still subject to
> some controversies, both about what the term covers -- does it include
> adults looking like children and animation -- and how to best tackle it
> -- in particular, does net filtering do more harm than good.
> 
> A consensus on the subject seems unlikely, unless it is narrowed down
> enough to exclude those points (perhaps justifiable on the grounds that 
> they can't really be debated without going into child protection).
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 11:32:25 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:32:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu> <760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org> <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <2E31DDE3-8345-44C7-BD71-BEB3A21A60C8@ras.eu.org>

Actually, controversies are about so-called 'harmful content', at the  
IGF and everywhere else. Almost everyone was aware of that for years,  
BTW (FYI, these controversies are around for about 15 years, what  
happened is simply a willing to transfer them to IGF, as a kind of  
forum shopping attempt).
There are also controversies on child pornography, or, more exactly,  
on how to fight child pornography on the Internet (trafic of images  
of child abuses, cyber-grooming, etc.) while respecting human rights  
and the rule of law. Especially when the proposed 'solution' is  
filtering and blocking.
Despite these controversies (which certainly remain also in the IGF  
venue), there have been actions taken, including at the international  
level, including through an International Convention (the Council of  
Europe Convention on Cybercrime, open for signatures by any country  
in the world). There are many other instruments of various forms and  
different binding levels.

What would an IGF round table provide in this situation? And, BTW,  
what is a "Round Table"? I mean, has this format been defined? Is  
there any precision on how it will differ from a workshop or a main  
session? In which way is this format more outcome oriented? I've seen  
these round tables mentioned by many people in the consultation  
transcripts, everyone seem to know what it means, but it seems I  
missed their definition and I hardly understand how they could be  
more outcome oriented that, say, workshops.

Meryem

Le 2 mars 09 à 17:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Sorry if I wasn't clear. There seems to be a difference between  
> debates about child pornography and child protection. The latter is  
> subject to controversies while the first is mentioned as an example  
> for a topic ready for more outcome oriented discussion formats such  
> as Round Tables.
> jeanette
>
>
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> There is something beyond my understanding here (sorry!). How  
>> could it be acknowledged that "Controversies persist around the  
>> question of what actually constitutes child _protection_" (i.e.  
>> people don't even agree on what is the topic about) and, at the  
>> same time, be decided (or felt) that these topics "are ready for  
>> some form of outcome, be it in the form recommendations, proposed  
>> codes of conducts, action lines or whatever"?
>> Meryem
>> Le 2 mars 09 à 16:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>> And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and  
>>>> everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well  
>>>> understood, the IGF is eager to address it,
>>>
>>> It is not that _the_ IGF is eager to adress it. There were at  
>>> each IGF meeting multiple workshops organized on this issue and  
>>> almost non of the organizers was willing to merge with other  
>>> organizers. According to those who attended these workshops,  
>>> there is a lot of agreement and not much new stuff coming up at  
>>> the moment. Controversies persist around the question of what  
>>> actually constitutes child _protection_.
>>> There was a strong sense at Hyderabad and at the public  
>>> consultation and at the MAG meeting that a few specific topics  
>>> have reached a point where no new insights can be gained by  
>>> organizing yet another workshop or main session to adress them.  
>>> Instead, they are ready for some form of outcome, be it in the  
>>> form recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, action lines or  
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> The IGF provides the space or container to produce any such  
>>> outcomes.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>> and on top of this has the
>>>> 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF  
>>>> circles.___________________________________________________________ 
>>>> _
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 12:01:41 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Paul Twomey announces departure from ICANN
Message-ID: <677498.21208.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi all,

Some of you will be interested to know Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO & President, has announced he will not be seeking to renew his contract with ICANN when it comes up for renewal on July 1, 2009. He will stay on for an additional 6 months and leave the organisation at the end of 2009.

I've posted a story on the announcement made this morning at the ICANN meeting at the following:
http://technewsreview.com.au/article.php?article=7423
http://www.domainpulse.com/2009/03/02/paul-twomey-icann-ceo-president-to-resign/
http://www.domainnews.com/en/general/icann-ceo-president-paul-twomey-announces-departure.html


Cheers
David
 
---------


David Goldstein
address: 4/3 Abbott Street
COOGEE NSW 2034
AUSTRALIA
email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au
phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)


"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery



      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ocl at gih.com  Mon Mar  2 12:28:32 2009
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:28:32 -0600
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <47EEF95DBFE7422FA5DC2FC1E310709A@GIH.CO.UK>

> The theme that I took away from the public meetings last week was 
> that the IGF should work in those areas where an existing worldwide 
> *solution* to a governance "issue" isn't already covered. As far as 
> I know, for example, there isn't a worldwide anti-spam or 
> anti-phishing agency, so that would be within remit to discuss and 
> attempt to combine existing knowledge and skills.

Could you please expand on this? I'm not sure what the scope, limits, 
and powers of such an agency would be and I'd be interested in hearing 
the proposals. Do DNS blacklists fall under this designation?

Thanks,

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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


From vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Mar  2 12:35:35 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:35:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] Paul Twomey announces departure from ICANN
In-Reply-To: <677498.21208.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <677498.21208.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49ac18e74de78_7b361555555879b41e3@weasel9.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090302/44f524dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 12:56:40 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:56:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <47EEF95DBFE7422FA5DC2FC1E310709A@GIH.CO.UK>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk> <47EEF95DBFE7422FA5DC2FC1E310709A@GIH.CO.UK>
Message-ID: <yD5LmYnY3BrJFABI@perry.co.uk>

In message <47EEF95DBFE7422FA5DC2FC1E310709A at GIH.CO.UK>, at 11:28:32 on 
Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> writes
>> The theme that I took away from the public meetings last week was 
>>that the IGF should work in those areas where an existing worldwide 
>>*solution* to a governance "issue" isn't already covered. As far as  I 
>>know, for example, there isn't a worldwide anti-spam or  anti-phishing 
>>agency, so that would be within remit to discuss and  attempt to 
>>combine existing knowledge and skills.
>
>Could you please expand on this? I'm not sure what the scope, limits, 
>and powers of such an agency would be and I'd be interested in hearing 
>the proposals. Do DNS blacklists fall under this designation?

I don't have any specific proposals to share with this list, but in 
general the IGF might be regarded as looking for "vacuums" to fill, and 
I was giving some examples of (hopefully non-contentious) things I 
regarded as vacuums, and which I hear mentioned many times from the 
floor as candidates for "something [more] should be done" in various 
public policy fora.
-- 
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 jfcallo at isocperu.org  Mon Mar  2 22:50:52 2009
From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:50:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
	<174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
	<f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D59D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<STxDiSc+l$qJFAsW@perry.co.uk>
	<8DA959DB-0C49-44A5-999D-F64463BBD541@ras.eu.org> <49AC0199.8000301@wzb.eu>
	<760CA149-F016-4D04-B886-A6ED116F0903@ras.eu.org> <49AC04A7.90108@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20090302225052.tzu3vhofc4sw4ssk@www.isocperu.org>

(English)
Please, The International Telecommunication Union, said the day of the  
League of information and telecommunications such as the protection of  
children in cyberspace.
I am planning in Peru, Lima, the "V of the Telecommunications Week and  
child protection in cyberspace," please help me to spread this  
activity will be from 18 to May 22 in INICTEL-UNI.
I am at your orders for any information.
Thanks
Jose F. Callo Romero
     Secretario
     ISOC Peru
(Spanish)
Perdon, La Union Internacional de Telecomunicaciones, ha declarado al  
dia de la Sociedad de la informacion y las Telecomunicaciones como el  
de la proteccion al niño en el ciberespacio.
Estoy organizando en Peru, Lima, la "V Semana de las  
Telecomunicaciones y proteccion al niño en el ciberespacio", por favor  
me ayudan a difundir esta actividad, sera del 18 al 22 de mayo en  
INICTEL-UNI.
Estoy a vuestras ordenes para cualquier consulta.
Gracias



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  2 23:47:49 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:47:49 +0100
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations and
In-Reply-To: <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>

Roland Perry a écrit :
> I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official report from the MAG 
> meeting, not yet available) 

The official summary report is now available

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Mar  3 04:29:49 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:29:49 +0000
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open
 consultations and
In-Reply-To: <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <LVslzpFNiPrJFAH8@perry.co.uk>

In message <49ACB675.7040604 at panos-ao.org>, at 05:47:49 on Tue, 3 Mar 
2009, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> writes
>Roland Perry a écrit :
>> I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official report from the MAG 
>>meeting, not yet available)
>
>The official summary report is now available
>
>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf

Thanks, Ken.

"IP address allocation in general and IPv6 allocation in particular; the 
JPA; the IANA contract; the importance of new TLDs and IDNs for 
development; enhanced cooperation."
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar  3 05:21:00 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:51:00 +0530
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net>

Hi All

Hope that comments by others and the official summary would have 
provided the details asked for by Ralf, Milton and others.

I am reminded of two other key developments that I did not report earlier.

1) The secretariat will invite workshop themes rather than workshop 
proposals this time. It has its advantages and disadvantages, though on 
the balance I am in favour of it. This will allow greater focus in the 
workshops by pulling together similar issues together into common 
workshops, and can also help the workshops being kept relatively more 
aligned to the key topics being otherwise discussed at the IGF. However 
this would not at all be easy to achieve as a process, which is still to 
be worked out. For one, there certainly will be a a larger role of the 
MAG now in the 'general workshops space' as well, while earlier it 
hardly did anything in this space.

2) Another very important development is that concerned dynamic 
coalition are likely to be associated from the very start with the 
development of round tables. This first time gives DCs an (important) 
official role in the IGF process. Significantly, this role is in an area 
which may soon become the most important and looked-forward-to part of 
the IGF.

The two above, I think, are important process innovations for the next 
IGF other than the very concept of round tables.

Thanks

Parminder

Ken Lohento wrote:
> Roland Perry a écrit :
>> I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official report from the MAG 
>> meeting, not yet available) 
>
> The official summary report is now available
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf
>
> Ken L
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090303/e4dec6b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Mar  3 07:45:37 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:45:37 +0100
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
	 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
	 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903030445w70517416x8bcc090f46648907@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Ken for this information very important.

Baudouin

2009/3/3 Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org>

> Roland Perry a écrit :
>
>> I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official report from the MAG
>> meeting, not yet available)
>>
>
> The official summary report is now available
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf
>
> Ken L
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090303/0773ddb0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Mar  3 22:29:21 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:29:21 +0800
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E9303773-5F75-42C6-A2E5-CE570E234E86@ciroap.org>

On 03/03/2009, at 6:21 PM, Parminder wrote:

> 2) Another very important development is that concerned dynamic  
> coalition are likely to be associated from the very start with the  
> development of round tables. This first time gives DCs an  
> (important) official role in the IGF process. Significantly, this  
> role is in an area which may soon become the most important and  
> looked-forward-to part of the IGF.


History has shown that there is an inevitable pulling back from the  
developments apparently made following the annual February open  
consultation meeting, however.  This time last year it was "debates".   
The year before that it was "speed dialogues".  So I'm not too  
confident that the round tables will see the light of day after ICC/ 
BASIS et al begin to sow the seeds of fear at the May consultations.

If I'm wrong, then yes it would be a positive development - but let's  
not over-estimate how far it would take us.  The outputs being  
proposed from these round tables are initiatives to which only those  
around the table would agree to independently pursue.  They would be,  
to adopt a phrase that found favour during the open consultations,  
recommendations *at* the IGF, not recommendations *of* the IGF.

Certainly, that is valuable in itself and fulfills part of the IGF's  
mandate - it's what I've called a network-building role, within its  
larger mandate of coordination of Internet governance activities.  But  
the normative weight behind an initiative that has been proposed and  
adopted by a round table group is more limited than that it would  
would carry if it had been adopted by the IGF as a whole.

So in my view, that remains the next step: to fill the missing link  
that inhibits the IGF from collectively adopting an initiative for  
action, or indeed from developing and collectively adopting a policy  
recommendation.  The round tables proposal skirts around that problem  
by limiting itself to cases where a consensus already exists - and is  
therefore pretty much limited to the single case of child pornography.

-- 
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 7226 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 MMKovary at aol.com  Wed Mar  4 01:49:14 2009
From: MMKovary at aol.com (MMKovary at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:49:14 EST
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open
 consultations and
Message-ID: <c10.54efa937.36df7e6a@aol.com>

Dear All,
 
There is a parallel discussion about internet accessibility for persons  with 
disabilities taking place on the IDA CRPD Forum listserv and it is my  
understanding (from some of the representatives of the World Blind Union) that  
Adobe pdf files are not accessible for blind persons.  The fact that the  official 
summary report is in pdf format is of concern.  I am  requesting that some of 
you who are "in the loop" will raise this concern  in all places where this 
problem might be addressed and resolved to the  satisfaction of our blind 
colleagues.
 
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
 
Myra Kovary
A member of the IDA CRPD Forum
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/3/2009 12:01:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
klohento at panos-ao.org writes:

Roland  Perry a écrit :
> I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official  report from the MAG 
> meeting, not yet available) 

The official  summary report is now  available

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf

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

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

**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a 
recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090304/fd052e4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ross at isoc.org  Wed Mar  4 02:20:18 2009
From: ross at isoc.org (Gerard Ross)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:20:18 +0100
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open
 consultations and
In-Reply-To: <c10.54efa937.36df7e6a@aol.com>
References: <c10.54efa937.36df7e6a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <F1D4B5F4-9B26-4BCD-9981-5E0A0CAA8C5A@isoc.org>

Hi

Actually, PDF files can be very accessible for blind people and others  
using screen readers, but the document needs to be set up correctly.  
Specifically, this means using the authoring software (eg Adode  
Professional) to tag the document so that screen readers can follow  
the correct structure.

In the present case, the MAG summary does not appear to be tagged -  
the main text will probably be fine, but it's likely screen readers  
will have a problem with the tables.

Regards
- Gerard


--
Gerard Ross
Senior Communications Manager
Internet Society
Email: ross at isoc.org


On 04/03/2009, at 7:49 AM, MMKovary at aol.com wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> There is a parallel discussion about internet accessibility for  
> persons with disabilities taking place on the IDA CRPD Forum  
> listserv and it is my understanding (from some of the  
> representatives of the World Blind Union) that Adobe pdf files are  
> not accessible for blind persons.  The fact that the official  
> summary report is in pdf format is of concern.  I am requesting that  
> some of you who are "in the loop" will raise this concern in all  
> places where this problem might be addressed and resolved to the  
> satisfaction of our blind colleagues.
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter,
>
> Myra Kovary
> A member of the IDA CRPD Forum
>
>
> In a message dated 3/3/2009 12:01:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, klohento at panos-ao.org 
>  writes:
> Roland Perry a écrit :
> > I'm not sure (without the benefit of an official report from the MAG
> > meeting, not yet available)
>
> The official summary report is now available
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.02.03.2009.pdf
>
> Ken L
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a  
> recession.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  4 03:22:43 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:22:43 +0000
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <E9303773-5F75-42C6-A2E5-CE570E234E86@ciroap.org>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net> <E9303773-5F75-42C6-A2E5-CE570E234E86@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <49AE3A53.5000507@wzb.eu>

Hi,

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 03/03/2009, at 6:21 PM, Parminder wrote:
> 
>> 2) Another very important development is that concerned dynamic 
>> coalition are likely to be associated from the very start with the 
>> development of round tables. This first time gives DCs an (important) 
>> official role in the IGF process. Significantly, this role is in an 
>> area which may soon become the most important and looked-forward-to 
>> part of the IGF.
> 
> 
> History has shown that there is an inevitable 

I don't see anything inevitable in this context. Also, it wasn't because 
ICC that the idea of speed dialogues was dropped, there were more people 
who didn't like this format. I was one of them. Same is true for 
"debates". I wasn't at that meeting but the open consultation's 
transcript shows that preferences for one of the other term run across 
stakeholder groups. You are constructing a "history" here that hasn't 
shown as much as you claim.
jeanette



pulling back from the
> developments apparently made following the annual February open 
> consultation meeting, however.  This time last year it was "debates".  
> The year before that it was "speed dialogues".  So I'm not too confident 
> that the round tables will see the light of day after ICC/BASIS et al 
> begin to sow the seeds of fear at the May consultations.
> 
> If I'm wrong, then yes it would be a positive development - but let's 
> not over-estimate how far it would take us.  The outputs being proposed 
> from these round tables are initiatives to which only those around the 
> table would agree to independently pursue.  They would be, to adopt a 
> phrase that found favour during the open consultations, recommendations 
> *at* the IGF, not recommendations *of* the IGF.
> 
> Certainly, that is valuable in itself and fulfills part of the IGF's 
> mandate - it's what I've called a network-building role, within its 
> larger mandate of coordination of Internet governance activities.  But 
> the normative weight behind an initiative that has been proposed and 
> adopted by a round table group is more limited than that it would would 
> carry if it had been adopted by the IGF as a whole.
> 
> So in my view, that remains the next step: to fill the missing link that 
> inhibits the IGF from collectively adopting an initiative for action, or 
> indeed from developing and collectively adopting a policy 
> recommendation.  The round tables proposal skirts around that problem by 
> limiting itself to cases where a consensus already exists - and is 
> therefore pretty much limited to the single case of child pornography.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar  4 03:38:05 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:38:05 +0300
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <49AE3A53.5000507@wzb.eu>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net>
	 <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN>
	 <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org>
	 <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net>
	 <E9303773-5F75-42C6-A2E5-CE570E234E86@ciroap.org>
	 <49AE3A53.5000507@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903040038h332ebaabld8f1f20dfda5e4fb@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On 03/03/2009, at 6:21 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Another very important development is that concerned dynamic coalition
>>> are likely to be associated from the very start with the development of
>>> round tables. This first time gives DCs an (important) official role in the
>>> IGF process. Significantly, this role is in an area which may soon become
>>> the most important and looked-forward-to part of the IGF.
>>
>>
>> History has shown that there is an inevitable
>
> I don't see anything inevitable in this context. Also, it wasn't because ICC
> that the idea of speed dialogues was dropped, there were more people who
> didn't like this format. I was one of them. Same is true for "debates". I
> wasn't at that meeting but the open consultation's transcript shows that
> preferences for one of the other term run across stakeholder groups. You are
> constructing a "history" here that hasn't shown as much as you claim.


Agreed...In addition, there is no  "larger mandate of coordination of
Internet governance activities."  The mandate is much more subtle than
this sweeping claim.


-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  4 21:23:09 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:23:09 +0800
Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903040038h332ebaabld8f1f20dfda5e4fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <f65fb55e0903012154s1c4335c0lcf68a7fe735d95a4@mail.gmail.com> <piLdOcLVt7qJFApu@perry.co.uk> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net> <E9303773-5F75-42C6-A2E5-CE570E234E86@ciroap.org> <49AE3A53.5000507@wzb.eu> <f65fb55e0903040038h332ebaabld8f1f20dfda5e4fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AB4F5743-E330-4E1F-87E9-6D5A6F4885FB@ciroap.org>

On 04/03/2009, at 4:38 PM, McTim wrote:

> Agreed...In addition, there is no  "larger mandate of coordination of
> Internet governance activities."  The mandate is much more subtle than
> this sweeping claim.

That is just a convenient shorthand for:

(b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross- 
cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and  
discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;
(c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and  
other institutions on matters under their purview;
...
(f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing  
and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from  
developing countries;
...
(i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS  
principles in Internet governance processes;

Similarly the remaining paragraphs of the mandate can be classed as  
either policy development or capacity building functions.

-- 
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 7226 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Mar  5 04:50:07 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:50:07 +1100
Subject: [governance] Workshop reports from Hyderabad
Message-ID: <1B26067355C14CD6BDAEAA45E8BEC082@IAN>

The IGF Secretariat made it clear during Geneva consultations that it would
not be accepting workshop proposals from organizers who did not submit a
report on their Hyderabad workshops. As they are about to commence a call
for workshop themes for the next meeting - with a proposed mid April
deadline - it is essential if you organized a workshop last year to get a
report in now to the Secretariat.

 

Having just submitted a late report on the Transboundary Internet workshop,
I found this a relatively simple task - I took the speakers and description
from the IGF website of the program and amended them, then added a few
paragraphs about what occurred during the workshop. So it shouldn't take
long, but for the record we should make sure all our workshops have been
reported.

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090305/956e858f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From klohento at panos-ao.org  Wed Mar 11 08:53:43 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:53:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
Message-ID: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>

Dear all

For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on IGF in 
West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting on legal and 
policy issues of the information society in West Africa, from 11 to 13 
March. See file attached for the agenda on IGF.

Regards

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: West Africa and the Internet Governance Forum_Saly workshop.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67551 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/429d526f/attachment.pdf>

From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Wed Mar 11 10:52:48 2009
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (SDK AAA)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:52:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>

Hey,
Nice to here that.
Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf secretariat so
that they put your link on their website.
Cheers...
B/.
Bernard SADAKA
Orkila International Offshore
Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
SNA building, 10th floor
P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
Fax    : +961 1 218858
Mobile: +961 3 172377
Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------



On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on IGF in West
> Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting on legal and policy
> issues of the information society in West Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See
> file attached for the agenda on IGF.
>
> Regards
>
> Ken L
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/f56c304c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 13:05:04 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:05:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ken

That is brilliant.
However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African
region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, what
is the link for participation so that we can hook up

Appreciatively

Aaron.

On 3/11/09, SDK AAA <sdkaaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
> Nice to here that.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf secretariat so
> that they put your link on their website.
> Cheers...
> B/.
> Bernard SADAKA
> Orkila International Offshore
> Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
> SNA building, 10th floor
> P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
> Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
> Fax    : +961 1 218858
> Mobile: +961 3 172377
> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org>wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on IGF in West
>> Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting on legal and policy
>> issues of the information society in West Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See
>> file attached for the agenda on IGF.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ken L
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/1b803ed3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From klohento at panos-ao.org  Wed Mar 11 13:21:06 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:21:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com> <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>

Dear Arron, Bernard

Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the whole 
workshop.

http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/

Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several issues) - 
But we need to work together so that all African regions meet and 
discuss on those issues (like what East Africa also did recently)

Regards

KL

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
> Hi Ken
>
> That is brilliant.
> However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African 
> region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, 
> what is the link for participation so that we can hook up
>
> Appreciatively
>
> Aaron.
>
> On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hey,
>     Nice to here that.
>     Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>     secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>     Cheers...
>     B/.
>     Bernard SADAKA
>     Orkila International Offshore
>     Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>     SNA building, 10th floor
>     P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>     Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>     Fax    : +961 1 218858
>     Mobile: +961 3 172377
>     Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>     ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>     <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>
>         Dear all
>
>         For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on
>         IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting
>         on legal and policy issues of the information society in West
>         Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the agenda
>         on IGF.
>
>         Regards
>
>         Ken L
>         ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>

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

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


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed Mar 11 13:46:02 2009
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:46:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30903111046p3bfb866av4b68a68eaa6f1ca3@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ken

Thanks for the link.
Will contact off list on the issue of African reworking together on IG
issues

Warmly

NAA

On 3/11/09, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Arron, Bernard
>
> Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the whole
> workshop.
>
> http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/
>
> Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several issues) - But
> we need to work together so that all African regions meet and discuss on
> those issues (like what East Africa also did recently)
>
> Regards
>
> KL
>
> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
>
>> Hi Ken
>>
>> That is brilliant.
>> However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African
>> region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, what
>> is the link for participation so that we can hook up
>>
>> Appreciatively
>>
>> Aaron.
>>
>> On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hey,
>>    Nice to here that.
>>    Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>>    secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>>    Cheers...
>>    B/.
>>    Bernard SADAKA
>>    Orkila International Offshore
>>    Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>>    SNA building, 10th floor
>>    P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>>    Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>>    Fax    : +961 1 218858
>>    Mobile: +961 3 172377
>>    Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>>    ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>>    <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>>
>>        Dear all
>>
>>        For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on
>>        IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting
>>        on legal and policy issues of the information society in West
>>        Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the agenda
>>        on IGF.
>>
>>        Regards
>>
>>        Ken L
>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/66edfe44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 14:02:23 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:02:23 -0600
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30903111046p3bfb866av4b68a68eaa6f1ca3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>
	 <a6bc8cb30903111046p3bfb866av4b68a68eaa6f1ca3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903111102g6fd732fdy35110e0179e51cb6@mail.gmail.com>

HelloKen Lohento,

An announcement of a program of this nature could have been posted well in
advance to allow thsoe intested to plan and participate....


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <
nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ken
>
> Thanks for the link.
> Will contact off list on the issue of African reworking together on IG
> issues
>
> Warmly
>
> NAA
>
>
> On 3/11/09, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Arron, Bernard
>>
>> Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the whole
>> workshop.
>>
>> http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/
>>
>> Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several issues) - But
>> we need to work together so that all African regions meet and discuss on
>> those issues (like what East Africa also did recently)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> KL
>>
>> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Ken
>>>
>>> That is brilliant.
>>> However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African
>>> region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, what
>>> is the link for participation so that we can hook up
>>>
>>> Appreciatively
>>>
>>> Aaron.
>>>
>>> On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hey,
>>>    Nice to here that.
>>>    Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>>>    secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>>>    Cheers...
>>>    B/.
>>>    Bernard SADAKA
>>>    Orkila International Offshore
>>>    Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>>>    SNA building, 10th floor
>>>    P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>>>    Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>>>    Fax    : +961 1 218858
>>>    Mobile: +961 3 172377
>>>    Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>>>    ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>>>    <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>        Dear all
>>>
>>>        For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on
>>>        IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting
>>>        on legal and policy issues of the information society in West
>>>        Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the agenda
>>>        on IGF.
>>>
>>>        Regards
>>>
>>>        Ken L
>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/f9b04dd4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Wed Mar 11 16:47:08 2009
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (SDK AAA)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:47:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49B7F302.7090406@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <43c2faf80903111347r4c5010bfv50039c0194a03ab@mail.gmail.com>

Hey,
Thx...
send my regards to everyone...
All the Best.
B/.
Bernard SADAKA
Orkila International Offshore
Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
SNA building, 10th floor
P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
Fax    : +961 1 218858
Mobile: +961 3 172377
Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------



On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:

> Dear Arron, Bernard
>
> Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the whole
> workshop.
>
> http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/
>
> Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several issues) - But
> we need to work together so that all African regions meet and discuss on
> those issues (like what East Africa also did recently)
>
> Regards
>
> KL
>
> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
>
>> Hi Ken
>>
>> That is brilliant.
>> However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African
>> region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, what
>> is the link for participation so that we can hook up
>>
>> Appreciatively
>>
>> Aaron.
>>
>> On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hey,
>>    Nice to here that.
>>    Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>>    secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>>    Cheers...
>>    B/.
>>    Bernard SADAKA
>>    Orkila International Offshore
>>    Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>>    SNA building, 10th floor
>>    P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>>    Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>>    Fax    : +961 1 218858
>>    Mobile: +961 3 172377
>>    Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>>    ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>>    <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>>
>>        Dear all
>>
>>        For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on
>>        IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting
>>        on legal and policy issues of the information society in West
>>        Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the agenda
>>        on IGF.
>>
>>        Regards
>>
>>        Ken L
>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/f3ca966d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 17:05:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:05:48 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF Review - call for contributions
Message-ID: <D22636A0868D44A1A501AD98212DE454@IAN>

The Secretariat has posted a call for contributions on the IGF Review at
www.intgovforum.org <http://www.intgovforum.org/> . All stakeholders are
invited to submit comments. An online
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronofor
mname=FormalConsult032009>  questionnaire is available. All contributions
received by 24 April will be reflected in a synthesis paper that will serve
as a basis for discussions at the consultations on 13 May 2009

 

 

I suggest that as individuals and organizations we might like to separately
submit comments. Perhaps we should also aim for a Caucus response before
April 24, or we could resubmit the relevant comments we made in February? 

 

Questions:

 

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the
Tunis Agenda?

 

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

 

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

 

4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it,
including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG),
Secretariat and open consultations? 

 

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate,
and why/why not?

 

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

 

7. Do you have any other comments?

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/c8262d27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 17:16:42 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:16:42 +1100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
Message-ID: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>

The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by April
15. 

 

The relevant questionnaire is at`
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ
ate-for-workshop-proposals

 

The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop
proposals which are similar.

 

IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as
well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should
submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others
interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate
proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the
IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to
the main list regularly as regards their progress.

 

We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to
suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it
would seem advisable to put a "stake in the ground" as regards workshops
where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as
open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and
principles. I am sure there are others.

 

I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a
topic here to discuss a workshop proposal

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/f0784a35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Mar 11 19:50:46 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:20:46 -0430
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
 content"
In-Reply-To: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
Message-ID: <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>

I was unable to find the following article online, but it was important
enough to me that I took the time to type in a copy to post here, in case
you haven’t seen it. The article: “Italy moves to place controls on Internet
content” appeared in the print edition of the International Herald Tribune
on Monday, March 9, 2009, on page 13. The whole article is interesting on
several political levels, but in particular, the article states that
Berlusconi has said that he will bring up ways to regulate the Internet at
the Group of 8 industrialized countries meeting in July. Is there a real
possibility the Group of 8 will take this seriously? Is there any precedent?

 

Italy moves to place controls on Internet content

 

International Herald Tribune, Monday March 9th Page 13

 

Milan. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has put himself front and
center in a debate over whether to place controls on the Internet that go
well beyond those that exist in most of the rest of the world.

 

Berlusconi’s governing coalition has backed a law in the Italian Parliament
that would require Internet service providers to black access to Web sites
with potentially objectionable content.

 

The law, approved last month by the Italian Senate, would give the ISPs 24
hours to block access to the content or face a fine of as much as Euros
250,000, or $315,500.

 

The measure, which must still be approved by the lower house of Parliament,
is one of several steps taken to restrict Internet freedom in Italy. It is
being considered as five Google employees face trial in Milan on charges
that they violated privacy laws with a video posted on the company’s
Italian-language video site.

 

Last month, the Interior ministry said it was studying ways to listen to
conversations on Skype, and the government has also tried harder than most
to close peer-to-peer Web sites that are used to exchange movies and music.

 

Critics are already lining up against the coalition’s proposal.

 

“Australia has taken a step to filter the Internet, France a different step,
Ireland another and even the United States another, but what is worrying is
that Italy is adding them all together, and that leads to a very restrictive
environment,” said Stefano Quintarelli, an Italian Internet pioneer who
co-founded the service provider I.NET and who blogs on technology issues in
English and Italian.

 

“This situation exists in Italy because it is an old country,” Quintarelli
added. “Parliament is filled with old people who are making the decisions.
Young Italians use the Internet and technology more than the European
average, but the older generations are way behind and they are afraid of
technology.”

 

The law was proposed in response to discussion groups on Facebook that
praised two high-level Mafia members—Salvatore Riina, the so-called boss of
bosses, know as Totò, and Bernardo Provenzano – who have been convicted of
multiple murders and are serving life sentences.

 

Berlusconi, who said during the election campaign last year that he did not
use e-mail or the Internet, has said he wants to use his role as host of a
meeting in July of the Group of 8 industrialized countries to discuss ways
to regulate the Internet.

 

The Google trial, which began last month and was scheduled to reconvene
March 17, centers on a video that shows several youths tormenting a
classmate with Down syndrome. The video was online for about two months
before somebody alerted Google, which took it down within a few hours.

 

At issue is whether Google should be considered an Internet service
provider, and thus not liable under current law for content, or whether it
is a content provider with responsibility for what is published on its Web
site.

 

A service provider is liable only if it does not remove illegal content from
its network and servers once notified of its existence.

 

“It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters
sent in the post,” Google said in a statement last month when the trial
began. “What’s more, seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content
posted on them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet.”

 

With Italy’s slow legal system, the Google trial could drag on for more than
a year.

 

Deciding what can and cannot be transmitted in cyberspace and determining
who is responsible has been a thorny issue for governments around the world.
Most have undertaken piecemeal regulation that uses existing laws to punish
crimes committed over the Internet.

 

“The best option is to let people say and do whatever they want on the
Internet and then punish those who overstep and break the law, just like
what happens offline,” said Giorgio Simonelli, a professor at the Catholic
University in Milan who follows the media.

 

“The problem with that policy is that you run the risk of judges being
snowed in with so many cases that you need a judicial system dedicated to
dealing with just Internet issues,” Simonelli said. “But if you try to block
content preventively, you limit freedom of expression, and it is an
important attribute that any free society must have.”

 

In Italy, any court case or legislation that deals with regulating the media
or the Internet takes on an added dimension because Berlusconi has indirect
control over more than 90 percent of the country’s television market. His
family holding company, Fininvest, owns 36 percent of Mediaset, which owns
the three most-watched private television channels in Italy.

 

The prime minister’s political position also gives him a say over the three
RAI public television channels because his political allies name a majority
on the company’s board.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090311/049c17ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Mar 12 06:25:32 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:25:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>
	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903120325q7df5b390je6322072e461440d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Aaron,

Central Africa programm meeting for IGF preparation will be publish shortly.
We discuss about logistic and accommodation modality.

Baudouin

2009/3/11 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>

> Hi Ken
>
> That is brilliant.
> However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central African
> region? If the central African region to which I belong is inclusive, what
> is the link for participation so that we can hook up
>
> Appreciatively
>
> Aaron.
>
>
> On 3/11/09, SDK AAA <sdkaaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>> Nice to here that.
>> Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf secretariat so
>> that they put your link on their website.
>> Cheers...
>> B/.
>> Bernard SADAKA
>> Orkila International Offshore
>> Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>> SNA building, 10th floor
>> P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>> Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>> Fax    : +961 1 218858
>> Mobile: +961 3 172377
>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on IGF in
>>> West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting on legal and policy
>>> issues of the information society in West Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See
>>> file attached for the agenda on IGF.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ken L
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/d08cf1a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 06:43:40 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:43:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
 Internet content"
In-Reply-To: <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>

In message <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 19:20:46 
on Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>Is there any precedent

What? For a country trying to restrict content... Look up "France" and 
"auctions of Nazi memorabilia" for an early example.

More recently, in the last month the UK government has in effect caused 
eBay to ban the sale of knives (to add to a very long list of things).
-- 
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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Mar 12 07:06:26 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:06:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903120406i723eb811x781a27ca5845bee5@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Peter,

We are a frenchspoken public. So can you accept french version proposal?

Baudouin

2009/3/11 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

>  The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by
> April 15.
>
>
>
> The relevant questionnaire is at`
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-template-for-workshop-proposals
>
>
>
> The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop
> proposals which are similar.
>
>
>
> IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as
> well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should
> submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others
> interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate
> proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the
> IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to
> the main list regularly as regards their progress.
>
>
>
> We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to
> suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it
> would seem advisable to put a “stake in the ground” as regards workshops
> where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as
> open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and
> principles. I am sure there are others.
>
>
>
> I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a
> topic here to discuss a workshop proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/0233a23d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 07:13:48 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:43:48 -0430
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
 Internet content"
In-Reply-To: <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>

Definitely, there are actions by countries, thanks for the examples.

I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
suggesting.

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] 
Enviado el: Jueves, 12 de Marzo de 2009 06:14 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
content"

In message <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 19:20:46 
on Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>Is there any precedent

What? For a country trying to restrict content... Look up "France" and 
"auctions of Nazi memorabilia" for an early example.

More recently, in the last month the UK government has in effect caused 
eBay to ban the sale of knives (to add to a very long list of things).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

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


From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Thu Mar 12 07:23:46 2009
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:23:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] From G8 to G20?
In-Reply-To: <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <C5DEAF52.1620B%jovank@diplomacy.edu>

Hi Ginger, we are ³closing the circle² in IG. In the late 1990s, the  Group
of 7 (later on 8 with Russia) was one of the first global policy body that
discussed international aspects of the ICT/Internet policy.  Paradoxically,
the global ICT-policy was removed from the G8 agenda at the summit in Genoa
back in 2001 presided by Berlusconi (the exception has been G8 cybersecurity
coordination). 

Now, eight years later Berlusconi may get IG back to G8. However, after 8
years, It  is likely that another ³G² - G-20 - will be more important for
IG-discussion than G8. If the next  G-20 summit on financial crisis will be
successful  (London ­ early April) one can expect broader role in G 20 in
the other global governance areas, including IG. Best, Jovan


On 3/12/09 12:50 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was unable to find the following article online, but it was important enough
> to me that I took the time to type in a copy to post here, in case you haven¹t
> seen it. The article: ³Italy moves to place controls on Internet content²
> appeared in the print edition of the International Herald Tribune on Monday,
> March 9, 2009, on page 13. The whole article is interesting on several
> political levels, but in particular, the article states that Berlusconi has
> said that he will bring up ways to regulate the Internet at the Group of 8
> industrialized countries meeting in July. Is there a real possibility the
> Group of 8 will take this seriously? Is there any precedent?
>  
> Italy moves to place controls on Internet content
>  
> International Herald Tribune, Monday March 9th Page 13
>  
> Milan. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has put himself front and
> center in a debate over whether to place controls on the Internet that go well
> beyond those that exist in most of the rest of the world.
>  
> Berlusconi¹s governing coalition has backed a law in the Italian Parliament
> that would require Internet service providers to black access to Web sites
> with potentially objectionable content.
>  
> The law, approved last month by the Italian Senate, would give the ISPs 24
> hours to block access to the content or face a fine of as much as Euros
> 250,000, or $315,500.
>  
> The measure, which must still be approved by the lower house of Parliament, is
> one of several steps taken to restrict Internet freedom in Italy. It is being
> considered as five Google employees face trial in Milan on charges that they
> violated privacy laws with a video posted on the company¹s Italian-language
> video site.
>  
> Last month, the Interior ministry said it was studying ways to listen to
> conversations on Skype, and the government has also tried harder than most to
> close peer-to-peer Web sites that are used to exchange movies and music.
>  
> Critics are already lining up against the coalition¹s proposal.
>  
> ³Australia has taken a step to filter the Internet, France a different step,
> Ireland another and even the United States another, but what is worrying is
> that Italy is adding them all together, and that leads to a very restrictive
> environment,² said Stefano Quintarelli, an Italian Internet pioneer who
> co-founded the service provider I.NET and who blogs on technology issues in
> English and Italian.
>  
> ³This situation exists in Italy because it is an old country,² Quintarelli
> added. ³Parliament is filled with old people who are making the decisions.
> Young Italians use the Internet and technology more than the European average,
> but the older generations are way behind and they are afraid of technology.²
>  
> The law was proposed in response to discussion groups on Facebook that praised
> two high-level Mafia members‹Salvatore Riina, the so-called boss of bosses,
> know as Totò, and Bernardo Provenzano ­ who have been convicted of multiple
> murders and are serving life sentences.
>  
> Berlusconi, who said during the election campaign last year that he did not
> use e-mail or the Internet, has said he wants to use his role as host of a
> meeting in July of the Group of 8 industrialized countries to discuss ways to
> regulate the Internet.
>  
> The Google trial, which began last month and was scheduled to reconvene March
> 17, centers on a video that shows several youths tormenting a classmate with
> Down syndrome. The video was online for about two months before somebody
> alerted Google, which took it down within a few hours.
>  
> At issue is whether Google should be considered an Internet service provider,
> and thus not liable under current law for content, or whether it is a content
> provider with responsibility for what is published on its Web site.
>  
> A service provider is liable only if it does not remove illegal content from
> its network and servers once notified of its existence.
>  
> ³It¹s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent
> in the post,² Google said in a statement last month when the trial began.
> ³What¹s more, seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content posted on
> them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet.²
>  
> With Italy¹s slow legal system, the Google trial could drag on for more than a
> year.
>  
> Deciding what can and cannot be transmitted in cyberspace and determining who
> is responsible has been a thorny issue for governments around the world. Most
> have undertaken piecemeal regulation that uses existing laws to punish crimes
> committed over the Internet.
>  
> ³The best option is to let people say and do whatever they want on the
> Internet and then punish those who overstep and break the law, just like what
> happens offline,² said Giorgio Simonelli, a professor at the Catholic
> University in Milan who follows the media.
>  
> ³The problem with that policy is that you run the risk of judges being snowed
> in with so many cases that you need a judicial system dedicated to dealing
> with just Internet issues,² Simonelli said. ³But if you try to block content
> preventively, you limit freedom of expression, and it is an important
> attribute that any free society must have.²
>  
> In Italy, any court case or legislation that deals with regulating the media
> or the Internet takes on an added dimension because Berlusconi has indirect
> control over more than 90 percent of the country¹s television market. His
> family holding company, Fininvest, owns 36 percent of Mediaset, which owns the
> three most-watched private television channels in Italy.
>  
> The prime minister¹s political position also gives him a say over the three
> RAI public television channels because his political allies name a majority on
> the company¹s board.
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090312/741002aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 09:16:19 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:16:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
 Internet content"
In-Reply-To: <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>

In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 
on Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
>to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
>suggesting.

They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more 
about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of 
Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Mar 12 09:54:23 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:54:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
	 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>

And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and
launched the dot force...

There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security
(broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely
surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but
it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like
what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...

Bill

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 on
> Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>
>> I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
>> to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
>> suggesting.
>>
>
> They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more
> about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of
> Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.
>
> --
> 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/20090312/52fb8ada/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Mar 12 10:15:00 2009
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:15:00 -0300
Subject: [governance] Article: "Why is deep packet inspection (DPI)
 essential for wireless networks?"
Message-ID: <490d0ba60903120715vddab841p836ffd47b7239714@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.digitalhomedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=215801560&cid=NL_DHDL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/91adc305/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From pavan.elena at gmail.com  Thu Mar 12 10:20:44 2009
From: pavan.elena at gmail.com (Elena Pavan)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:20:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
	 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
	 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed,

Bill literally stole my words
 this news is not that new either. we were in hyderabad first time such an
issue was raised by my government (totally overlooking the IGF... but maybe
even not knowing that much about the IGF..). despite what echoes outside
italy you have to consider that this "project" is part of berlusconi's & Co.
lrger "project" to slowly move towards a -how can i define it without
sounding drastic?- totalitarian/unilateral/individual "regime" (i guess it
is more drastic than what i wanted but sounds like the truth).
he is not aware of implications of this statements and i believe
preoccupations expressed abroad and by all of you should be seized down  (if
this can ever be a re-sizing) to the fact that there is a "leader" who
speaks as he does and is potentially dangerous. but, in this specific
regard, only potentially. italian policies on data retention are pretty much
strict and ujust, though but they are comlementary tot he overall limitation
of civil rights in relation to the necessity to guarantee "security". after
all, believe me, where he can do damages within the italian boundaries, he
is already doing. nonetheless, the "worldwide threat" posed by my government
is, in my opinion, more political/ethical than actual. none would follow
berlusconi path... maybe russia, as bill says, but maybe even they are
clever that us...at the end of the day, before coming out of the blue with
such a statement at the next G8 i believe (better, hope) berlusconi will
re-consider considering consequences that such a proposal might have. it is
not convinient, after all, to go down this way and he might realize it
before it is too late. in other words, it is outrageous, but not realistic.
tchuss
elena

2009/3/12 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and
> launched the dot force...
>
> There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security
> (broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely
> surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but
> it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like
> what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...
>
> Bill
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry <
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48
>> on Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>>
>>> I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a
>>> group
>>> to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
>>> suggesting.
>>>
>>
>> They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more
>> about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of
>> Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.
>>
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
Dr. Elena Pavan
DSRS University of Trento
Via Verdi n. 26
38100 Trento
GigaNet Secretary
http://giganet.igloogroups.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/d3a9ff1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 10:21:34 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Z8BxpOYupRuJFAuL@perry.co.uk>

In message <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec at mail.gmail.com>, 
at 14:54:23 on Thu, 12 Mar 2009, William Drake 
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> writes
>And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and 
>launched the dot force...

I went to one inaugural Dotforce meeting at 10 Downing Street, then 
never heard anything more afterwards.
-- 
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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Mar 12 11:42:05 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:42:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
	 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
	 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>,<947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

I agree with Jovan, Elena and Bill that G-7 is unlikely to have impact on Internet regulation; and that Berlusconi's impact beyond Italy's borders will fortunately remain negligible.

G-20 as key forum I would go further and say it already is more significant, for dealing with global financial crisis and other international issues including probably IG. But its impact is also limited to heads of state consensus/agenda--setting, since other institutions would have to pick up implementation beyond the summit meeting(s).  As was noted G7 played that role in the past including for info society issues, but without BRIC these days it can do little.

Lee

For PhD student trolls on the list.
G-7 1st said  'global information society' in '94,in Naples; a ministerial followed in '95 in Brussels, but was of no great consequence, other than signifying 'global info society' issues were formally on international agenda.  At least that's my recollection from the cheap seats of academe/as a bit player/go-between for EU & US at the time. Lots of hot air but little action - gee some things don't change.

Actually VP Gore said phrase 'global information infrastructure' in keynote at ITU mtg in Buenos Aires earlier in 94 so ITU was 1st ; )

Look it up:
At the Naples G-7 Summit in July 1994, the G-7 leaders emphasized the necessity of encouraging the development of a worldwide information society and they agreed that the relevant ministers should meet in Brussels. The European Commission extended an invitation to the G-7 to convene a ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26, 1995. The Information Society Conference will include ministerial level discussions on: 

regulatory and competitive frameworks 
the development of the infrastructure and access to it 
essential applications as well as the social, societal, and cultural aspects of the information society 
Each G-7 Country, plus the European Union, will send Ministers responsible for telecommunications and information matters. The conference will include a session with private sector representatives, both users and producers of telecommunications and information equipment and services from each of the Member states participating in the G-7 conference. Technology demonstrations will be given by governments and industry during the conference to showcase the benefits and capabilities of information technology." 

>From the U.S. Department of Commerce notice of public meeting on November 16, 1994, regarding the G-7 ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26, 1995, in Brussels. 


________________________________________
From: Elena Pavan [pavan.elena at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:20 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet

Indeed,

Bill literally stole my words
 this news is not that new either. we were in hyderabad first time such an issue was raised by my government (totally overlooking the IGF... but maybe even not knowing that much about the IGF..). despite what echoes outside italy you have to consider that this "project" is part of berlusconi's & Co. lrger "project" to slowly move towards a -how can i define it without sounding drastic?- totalitarian/unilateral/individual "regime" (i guess it is more drastic than what i wanted but sounds like the truth).
he is not aware of implications of this statements and i believe preoccupations expressed abroad and by all of you should be seized down  (if this can ever be a re-sizing) to the fact that there is a "leader" who speaks as he does and is potentially dangerous. but, in this specific regard, only potentially. italian policies on data retention are pretty much strict and ujust, though but they are comlementary tot he overall limitation of civil rights in relation to the necessity to guarantee "security". after all, believe me, where he can do damages within the italian boundaries, he is already doing. nonetheless, the "worldwide threat" posed by my government is, in my opinion, more political/ethical than actual. none would follow berlusconi path... maybe russia, as bill says, but maybe even they are clever that us...at the end of the day, before coming out of the blue with such a statement at the next G8 i believe (better, hope) berlusconi will re-consider considering consequences that such a proposal might have. it is not convinient, after all, to go down this way and he might realize it before it is too late. in other words, it is outrageous, but not realistic.
tchuss
elena

2009/3/12 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and launched the dot force...

There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security (broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...

Bill

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 on Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> writes

I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
suggesting.

They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.

--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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




--
Dr. Elena Pavan
DSRS University of Trento
Via Verdi n. 26
38100 Trento
GigaNet Secretary
http://giganet.igloogroups.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar 12 11:51:38 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:51:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] Article: "Why is deep packet inspection (DPI) 
In-Reply-To: <490d0ba60903120715vddab841p836ffd47b7239714@mail.gmail.com>
References: <490d0ba60903120715vddab841p836ffd47b7239714@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903120851k897d4d3l6d597da320429d09@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

The author is simply trying to sell DPI kit.  That's what his company does:

http://www.ccpu.com/products/

Of COURSE he is going to say it's essential!

On 3/12/09, Sergio Alves Junior <sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.digitalhomedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=215801560&cid=NL_DHDL
>


-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Mar 12 12:29:18 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:18 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP> <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
 <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear list
 
Here is my approach after the discussions in Mexico. 
 
There will be - unavoidably - a new role for governments in Internet Governance for various reasons in the years ahead. (Post JPA, enhanced cooperation in a new political and economic environment, lessons learned from the failure of self regulation of the banking sector etc.).
 
What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet Governance?
 
1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government sends whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision making capacity at home). Additionally as long as there is no solution for the China/Taiwan issue and Russia is only an observer GAC is not really representative.
 
2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process) negotiated within the UN system . Makes also little sense because such treaty negotiations would last for 15 years or more. 
 
3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)
 
4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the major players and has the power to push various organisations which have negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue basis. The G 7 played such a role under the Clinton Administration to a certain degree. They organized in 1995 the famous Brussels G 7 Information Society Summit where they invited also South African president MBeki. The US government pushed for a "Global Information Infrastructure Initiative" (GII). There was already a parallel business roundtable which signalled the multistakeholder approach. One year later was the  G7 meeting in Midrand. And inn 2000 the G 7 adopted the "Okinawa Information Society Declaration" and launched the DotForce. This process collapsed with the Bush Administration. No other G 7 member was reallz interested to continue with DotForce which became later part of the UNICTTF which now is the GAID. I could imagine that the Obama administration will come back to this in the framework of forthcoming G 7/8 meeting. But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz too narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network where the various institutions act in their specific roles without subordination but with mutual respect. This would be one step int this new territory of unchartered water which is called cyberspace. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Do 12.03.2009 16:42
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Elena Pavan
Betreff: RE: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet



Hi,

I agree with Jovan, Elena and Bill that G-7 is unlikely to have impact on Internet regulation; and that Berlusconi's impact beyond Italy's borders will fortunately remain negligible.

G-20 as key forum I would go further and say it already is more significant, for dealing with global financial crisis and other international issues including probably IG. But its impact is also limited to heads of state consensus/agenda--setting, since other institutions would have to pick up implementation beyond the summit meeting(s).  As was noted G7 played that role in the past including for info society issues, but without BRIC these days it can do little.

Lee

For PhD student trolls on the list.
G-7 1st said  'global information society' in '94,in Naples; a ministerial followed in '95 in Brussels, but was of no great consequence, other than signifying 'global info society' issues were formally on international agenda..  At least that's my recollection from the cheap seats of academe/as a bit player/go-between for EU & US at the time. Lots of hot air but little action - gee some things don't change.

Actually VP Gore said phrase 'global information infrastructure' in keynote at ITU mtg in Buenos Aires earlier in 94 so ITU was 1st ; )

Look it up:
At the Naples G-7 Summit in July 1994, the G-7 leaders emphasized the necessity of encouraging the development of a worldwide information society and they agreed that the relevant ministers should meet in Brussels. The European Commission extended an invitation to the G-7 to convene a ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26, 1995. The Information Society Conference will include ministerial level discussions on:

regulatory and competitive frameworks
the development of the infrastructure and access to it
essential applications as well as the social, societal, and cultural aspects of the information society
Each G-7 Country, plus the European Union, will send Ministers responsible for telecommunications and information matters. The conference will include a session with private sector representatives, both users and producers of telecommunications and information equipment and services from each of the Member states participating in the G-7 conference. Technology demonstrations will be given by governments and industry during the conference to showcase the benefits and capabilities of information technology."

>From the U.S. Department of Commerce notice of public meeting on November 16, 1994, regarding the G-7 ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26, 1995, in Brussels.


________________________________________
From: Elena Pavan [pavan.elena at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:20 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet

Indeed,

Bill literally stole my words
 this news is not that new either. we were in hyderabad first time such an issue was raised by my government (totally overlooking the IGF... but maybe even not knowing that much about the IGF..). despite what echoes outside italy you have to consider that this "project" is part of berlusconi's & Co. lrger "project" to slowly move towards a -how can i define it without sounding drastic?- totalitarian/unilateral/individual "regime" (i guess it is more drastic than what i wanted but sounds like the truth).
he is not aware of implications of this statements and i believe preoccupations expressed abroad and by all of you should be seized down  (if this can ever be a re-sizing) to the fact that there is a "leader" who speaks as he does and is potentially dangerous. but, in this specific regard, only potentially. italian policies on data retention are pretty much strict and ujust, though but they are comlementary tot he overall limitation of civil rights in relation to the necessity to guarantee "security". after all, believe me, where he can do damages within the italian boundaries, he is already doing. nonetheless, the "worldwide threat" posed by my government is, in my opinion, more political/ethical than actual. none would follow berlusconi path... maybe russia, as bill says, but maybe even they are clever that us....at the end of the day, before coming out of the blue with such a statement at the next G8 i believe (better, hope) berlusconi will re-consider considering consequences that such a proposal might have. it is not convinient, after all, to go down this way and he might realize it before it is too late.. in other words, it is outrageous, but not realistic.
tchuss
elena

2009/3/12 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and launched the dot force...

There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security (broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...

Bill

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 on Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> writes

I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
suggesting.

They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.

--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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




--
Dr. Elena Pavan
DSRS University of Trento
Via Verdi n. 26
38100 Trento
GigaNet Secretary
http://giganet.igloogroups.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  Thu Mar 12 12:37:59 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:37:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
	 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
	 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
	 <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <2bd6d7670903120937l7eae4224hbe53eb237d82375f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:


>  of forthcoming G 7/8 meeting. But the world has changed since 2000 and the
>  G 7 would be todaz too narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G
> 20 which includes BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20.
> With an IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture
> where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network where the
> various institutions act in their specific roles without subordination but
> with mutual respect. This would be one step int this new territory of
> unchartered water which is called cyberspace.


Just what the US government is looking for, an opportunity to sit with the
BRIC countries at a smaller table with greater pressure and higher
expectations!

I suspect they'd prefer the ITU.  Small-n when you want to get something
done, large-n when you don't.

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090312/a1953fcc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Mar 12 12:47:03 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:47:03 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP> <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
 <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2bd6d7670903120937l7eae4224hbe53eb237d82375f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C82@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

his is right. In my "triangular" ITU is part of the UN process. But also this is open for innovation. My reading from the WTPF is that ITU wants to keep the door open to be prepared for something which comes out from new developments. There is the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2010 and in the ITU the member states makes decisions. There is no need to launch a new negotiation process. You have already ITU Resolution 102 which is a negotiaiton mandate (to a certain degree). But it needs the wllingness of the G 20 governments to use the ITU. Insofar I see ITU more or less subordinated to G 20 (IG 20) not in a formal sense that IG 20 decidees and ITU (and other instiutions) execute, but as part of a vry high level consultation and coodination process which enableas thevarious other governmental and non-govenrmental players to make decisions in their respective field of responsibility. It is part of a multilayer multiplayer mechanism where yu have no formal hierarchie but visible power. 
 
wolfgang
  

________________________________

Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Gesendet: Do 12.03.2009 17:37
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Lee W McKnight; Elena Pavan
Betreff: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet


Hi Wolfgang,


On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 

	 of forthcoming G 7/8 meeting. But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz too narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network where the various institutions act in their specific roles without subordination but with mutual respect. This would be one step int this new territory of unchartered water which is called cyberspace.


Just what the US government is looking for, an opportunity to sit with the BRIC countries at a smaller table with greater pressure and higher expectations!

I suspect they'd prefer the ITU.  Small-n when you want to get something done, large-n when you don't.

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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Thu Mar 12 13:50:26 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:50:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk> <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP> <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk> <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com> <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <677C4AC5707D4D12A440BAD36B5DD4F5@PCbureau>

Dear Wolfgang

What is the difference in termes of legitimacy between G8 and G20 ? There is 
none, since G20 is just a "oversized version" of G8.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack


----- Original Message ----- 
From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>; 
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Elena Pavan" <pavan.elena at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:29 PM
Subject: AW: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on 
Internet



Dear list

Here is my approach after the discussions in Mexico.

There will be - unavoidably - a new role for governments in Internet 
Governance for various reasons in the years ahead. (Post JPA, enhanced 
cooperation in a new political and economic environment, lessons learned 
from the failure of self regulation of the banking sector etc.).

What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet Governance?

1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government sends 
whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision making capacity 
at home). Additionally as long as there is no solution for the China/Taiwan 
issue and Russia is only an observer GAC is not really representative.

2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced 
cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process) negotiated within 
the UN system . Makes also little sense because such treaty negotiations 
would last for 15 years or more.

3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)

4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the major 
players and has the power to push various organisations which have 
negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue basis. The G 7 
played such a role under the Clinton Administration to a certain degree. 
They organized in 1995 the famous Brussels G 7 Information Society Summit 
where they invited also South African president MBeki. The US government 
pushed for a "Global Information Infrastructure Initiative" (GII). There was 
already a parallel business roundtable which signalled the multistakeholder 
approach. One year later was the  G7 meeting in Midrand. And inn 2000 the G 
7 adopted the "Okinawa Information Society Declaration" and launched the 
DotForce. This process collapsed with the Bush Administration. No other G 7 
member was reallz interested to continue with DotForce which became later 
part of the UNICTTF which now is the GAID. I could imagine that the Obama 
administration will come back to this in the framework of forthcoming G 7/8 
meeting. But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz 
too narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes 
BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an IG 20 you 
would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture where IGF, ICANN and 
IG 20 would be combined in form of a network where the various institutions 
act in their specific roles without subordination but with mutual respect. 
This would be one step int this new territory of unchartered water which is 
called cyberspace.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Do 12.03.2009 16:42
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Elena Pavan
Betreff: RE: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on 
Internet



Hi,

I agree with Jovan, Elena and Bill that G-7 is unlikely to have impact on 
Internet regulation; and that Berlusconi's impact beyond Italy's borders 
will fortunately remain negligible.

G-20 as key forum I would go further and say it already is more significant, 
for dealing with global financial crisis and other international issues 
including probably IG. But its impact is also limited to heads of state 
consensus/agenda--setting, since other institutions would have to pick up 
implementation beyond the summit meeting(s).  As was noted G7 played that 
role in the past including for info society issues, but without BRIC these 
days it can do little.

Lee

For PhD student trolls on the list.
G-7 1st said  'global information society' in '94,in Naples; a ministerial 
followed in '95 in Brussels, but was of no great consequence, other than 
signifying 'global info society' issues were formally on international 
agenda..  At least that's my recollection from the cheap seats of academe/as 
a bit player/go-between for EU & US at the time. Lots of hot air but little 
action - gee some things don't change.

Actually VP Gore said phrase 'global information infrastructure' in keynote 
at ITU mtg in Buenos Aires earlier in 94 so ITU was 1st ; )

Look it up:
At the Naples G-7 Summit in July 1994, the G-7 leaders emphasized the 
necessity of encouraging the development of a worldwide information society 
and they agreed that the relevant ministers should meet in Brussels. The 
European Commission extended an invitation to the G-7 to convene a 
ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26, 
1995. The Information Society Conference will include ministerial level 
discussions on:

regulatory and competitive frameworks
the development of the infrastructure and access to it
essential applications as well as the social, societal, and cultural aspects 
of the information society
Each G-7 Country, plus the European Union, will send Ministers responsible 
for telecommunications and information matters. The conference will include 
a session with private sector representatives, both users and producers of 
telecommunications and information equipment and services from each of the 
Member states participating in the G-7 conference. Technology demonstrations 
will be given by governments and industry during the conference to showcase 
the benefits and capabilities of information technology."

>From the U.S. Department of Commerce notice of public meeting on November 
16, 1994, regarding the G-7 ministerial level conference on the Information 
Society on February 25-26, 1995, in Brussels.


________________________________________
From: Elena Pavan [pavan.elena at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:20 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on 
Internet

Indeed,

Bill literally stole my words
 this news is not that new either. we were in hyderabad first time such an 
issue was raised by my government (totally overlooking the IGF... but maybe 
even not knowing that much about the IGF..). despite what echoes outside 
italy you have to consider that this "project" is part of berlusconi's & Co. 
lrger "project" to slowly move towards a -how can i define it without 
sounding drastic?- totalitarian/unilateral/individual "regime" (i guess it 
is more drastic than what i wanted but sounds like the truth).
he is not aware of implications of this statements and i believe 
preoccupations expressed abroad and by all of you should be seized down  (if 
this can ever be a re-sizing) to the fact that there is a "leader" who 
speaks as he does and is potentially dangerous. but, in this specific 
regard, only potentially. italian policies on data retention are pretty much 
strict and ujust, though but they are comlementary tot he overall limitation 
of civil rights in relation to the necessity to guarantee "security". after 
all, believe me, where he can do damages within the italian boundaries, he 
is already doing. nonetheless, the "worldwide threat" posed by my government 
is, in my opinion, more political/ethical than actual. none would follow 
berlusconi path... maybe russia, as bill says, but maybe even they are 
clever that us....at the end of the day, before coming out of the blue with 
such a statement at the next G8 i believe (better, hope) berlusconi will 
re-consider considering consequences that such a proposal might have. it is 
not convinient, after all, to go down this way and he might realize it 
before it is too late.. in other words, it is outrageous, but not realistic.
tchuss
elena

2009/3/12 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and 
launched the dot force...

There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security 
(broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely 
surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but 
it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like 
what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...

Bill

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry 
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> 
wrote:
In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 on 
Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> 
writes

I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
suggesting.

They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more 
about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of 
Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.

--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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




--
Dr. Elena Pavan
DSRS University of Trento
Via Verdi n. 26
38100 Trento
GigaNet Secretary
http://giganet.igloogroups.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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com  Thu Mar 12 13:57:35 2009
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:57:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] Article: "Why is deep packet inspection (DPI) 
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903120851k897d4d3l6d597da320429d09@mail.gmail.com>
References: <490d0ba60903120715vddab841p836ffd47b7239714@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f65fb55e0903120851k897d4d3l6d597da320429d09@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <490d0ba60903121057x5b3a68d9m6be867dbf9318668@mail.gmail.com>

Yes! he left it very clear in article.

Sérgio

2009/3/12, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> The author is simply trying to sell DPI kit.  That's what his company does:
>
> http://www.ccpu.com/products/
>
> Of COURSE he is going to say it's essential!
>
> On 3/12/09, Sergio Alves Junior <sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.digitalhomedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=215801560&cid=NL_DHDL
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Mar 12 15:59:00 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:59:00 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP> <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
 <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <677C4AC5707D4D12A440BAD36B5DD4F5@PCbureau>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Good question Jean Louis. G 20 includes BRIC and some more (Turkey). I know this is nothing else than the "power house" not the "peoples house". This is one reasn why I argue in my triangle (IGF, ICANN IG 20) )for a "network" without subordination. 
 
w 

________________________________

Von: jlfullsack [mailto:jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr]
Gesendet: Do 12.03.2009 18:50
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet



Dear Wolfgang

What is the difference in termes of legitimacy between G8 and G20 ? There is
none, since G20 is just a "oversized version" of G8.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack


----- Original Message -----
From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>;
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Elena Pavan" <pavan.elena at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:29 PM
Subject: AW: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
Internet



Dear list

Here is my approach after the discussions in Mexico.

There will be - unavoidably - a new role for governments in Internet
Governance for various reasons in the years ahead. (Post JPA, enhanced
cooperation in a new political and economic environment, lessons learned
from the failure of self regulation of the banking sector etc.).

What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet Governance?

1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government sends
whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision making capacity
at home). Additionally as long as there is no solution for the China/Taiwan
issue and Russia is only an observer GAC is not really representative.

2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced
cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process) negotiated within
the UN system . Makes also little sense because such treaty negotiations
would last for 15 years or more.

3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)

4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the major
players and has the power to push various organisations which have
negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue basis. The G 7
played such a role under the Clinton Administration to a certain degree.
They organized in 1995 the famous Brussels G 7 Information Society Summit
where they invited also South African president MBeki. The US government
pushed for a "Global Information Infrastructure Initiative" (GII). There was
already a parallel business roundtable which signalled the multistakeholder
approach. One year later was the  G7 meeting in Midrand. And inn 2000 the G
7 adopted the "Okinawa Information Society Declaration" and launched the
DotForce. This process collapsed with the Bush Administration. No other G 7
member was reallz interested to continue with DotForce which became later
part of the UNICTTF which now is the GAID. I could imagine that the Obama
administration will come back to this in the framework of forthcoming G 7/8
meeting. But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz
too narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes
BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an IG 20 you
would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture where IGF, ICANN and
IG 20 would be combined in form of a network where the various institutions
act in their specific roles without subordination but with mutual respect.
This would be one step int this new territory of unchartered water which is
called cyberspace.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Do 12.03.2009 16:42
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Elena Pavan
Betreff: RE: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
Internet



Hi,

I agree with Jovan, Elena and Bill that G-7 is unlikely to have impact on
Internet regulation; and that Berlusconi's impact beyond Italy's borders
will fortunately remain negligible.

G-20 as key forum I would go further and say it already is more significant,
for dealing with global financial crisis and other international issues
including probably IG. But its impact is also limited to heads of state
consensus/agenda--setting, since other institutions would have to pick up
implementation beyond the summit meeting(s).  As was noted G7 played that
role in the past including for info society issues, but without BRIC these
days it can do little.

Lee

For PhD student trolls on the list.
G-7 1st said  'global information society' in '94,in Naples; a ministerial
followed in '95 in Brussels, but was of no great consequence, other than
signifying 'global info society' issues were formally on international
agenda..  At least that's my recollection from the cheap seats of academe/as
a bit player/go-between for EU & US at the time. Lots of hot air but little
action - gee some things don't change.

Actually VP Gore said phrase 'global information infrastructure' in keynote
at ITU mtg in Buenos Aires earlier in 94 so ITU was 1st ; )

Look it up:
At the Naples G-7 Summit in July 1994, the G-7 leaders emphasized the
necessity of encouraging the development of a worldwide information society
and they agreed that the relevant ministers should meet in Brussels. The
European Commission extended an invitation to the G-7 to convene a
ministerial level conference on the Information Society on February 25-26,
1995. The Information Society Conference will include ministerial level
discussions on:

regulatory and competitive frameworks
the development of the infrastructure and access to it
essential applications as well as the social, societal, and cultural aspects
of the information society
Each G-7 Country, plus the European Union, will send Ministers responsible
for telecommunications and information matters. The conference will include
a session with private sector representatives, both users and producers of
telecommunications and information equipment and services from each of the
Member states participating in the G-7 conference. Technology demonstrations
will be given by governments and industry during the conference to showcase
the benefits and capabilities of information technology."

>From the U.S. Department of Commerce notice of public meeting on November
16, 1994, regarding the G-7 ministerial level conference on the Information
Society on February 25-26, 1995, in Brussels.


________________________________________
From: Elena Pavan [pavan.elena at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:20 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on
Internet

Indeed,

Bill literally stole my words
 this news is not that new either. we were in hyderabad first time such an
issue was raised by my government (totally overlooking the IGF... but maybe
even not knowing that much about the IGF..). despite what echoes outside
italy you have to consider that this "project" is part of berlusconi's & Co.
lrger "project" to slowly move towards a -how can i define it without
sounding drastic?- totalitarian/unilateral/individual "regime" (i guess it
is more drastic than what i wanted but sounds like the truth).
he is not aware of implications of this statements and i believe
preoccupations expressed abroad and by all of you should be seized down  (if
this can ever be a re-sizing) to the fact that there is a "leader" who
speaks as he does and is potentially dangerous. but, in this specific
regard, only potentially. italian policies on data retention are pretty much
strict and ujust, though but they are comlementary tot he overall limitation
of civil rights in relation to the necessity to guarantee "security". after
all, believe me, where he can do damages within the italian boundaries, he
is already doing. nonetheless, the "worldwide threat" posed by my government
is, in my opinion, more political/ethical than actual. none would follow
berlusconi path... maybe russia, as bill says, but maybe even they are
clever that us....at the end of the day, before coming out of the blue with
such a statement at the next G8 i believe (better, hope) berlusconi will
re-consider considering consequences that such a proposal might have. it is
not convinient, after all, to go down this way and he might realize it
before it is too late.. in other words, it is outrageous, but not realistic.
tchuss
elena

2009/3/12 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
And the 2000 summit in Okinawa addressed the global digital divide and
launched the dot force...

There's lots of forum shopping going on with respect to security
(broadly/vaguely/problematically defined) and it wouldn't be entirely
surprising for the G8 to be brought into play for a related statement, but
it's hard to imagine most member governments getting behind something like
what the Italian senate is reported to have done.  Maybe Russia...

Bill

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>>
wrote:
In message <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543 at GINGERLAPTOP>, at 06:43:48 on
Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>>
writes

I was particularly interested in any previous mention by the G8 as a group
to issue some kind of statement or guideline, as Berlusconi seems to be
suggesting.

They've done specific work on "High Tech Crime" (which is in effect more
about retaining traffic data). I'm not aware of anything in the area of
Content filtering - but I don't monitor it regularly.

--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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




--
Dr. Elena Pavan
DSRS University of Trento
Via Verdi n. 26
38100 Trento
GigaNet Secretary
http://giganet.igloogroups.org/

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 10:05:28 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:35:28 -0430
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
Message-ID: <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>

I am very interested in several Workshops which I think fit with IGC
priorities, and interests of others on the list:

 

*       Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and
application (practical) perspectives

*       Awareness and practical applications for people with disabilities –
with the DC?

*       Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital
education

*       Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, business and government
presenting different sides—we had a great discussion on the NN panel last
year, but were missing the academic viewpoint.

 

Ideas? Comments? Thanks!

 

Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Marzo de 2009 04:47 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

 

The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by April
15. 

 

The relevant questionnaire is at`
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ
ate-for-workshop-proposals

 

The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop
proposals which are similar.

 

IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as
well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should
submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others
interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate
proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the
IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to
the main list regularly as regards their progress.

 

We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to
suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it
would seem advisable to put a “stake in the ground” as regards workshops
where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as
open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and
principles. I am sure there are others.

 

I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a
topic here to discuss a workshop proposal

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090313/876fba7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 13 15:33:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:33:48 +1100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0903120406i723eb811x781a27ca5845bee5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D1A7E475E7A4071A04C39E35C7FCA81@IAN>

Sorry, I’ve been traveling, a bit late responding

 

Mais oui! I am sure there are people here who can assist with translation if
we need to at any stage

 

 

  _____  

From: BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 March 2009 22:06
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

 

Hi Peter,

 

We are a frenchspoken public. So can you accept french version proposal?

 

Baudouin

2009/3/11 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by April
15. 

 

The relevant questionnaire is at`
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ
ate-for-workshop-proposals

 

The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop
proposals which are similar.

 

IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as
well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should
submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others
interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate
proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the
IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to
the main list regularly as regards their progress.

 

We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to
suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it
would seem advisable to put a “stake in the ground” as regards workshops
where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as
open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and
principles. I am sure there are others.

 

I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a
topic here to discuss a workshop proposal

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com <http://www.ianpeter.com/> 

 

 


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

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




-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com> 
http://akimambo.unblog.fr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090314/fad38f16/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Fri Mar 13 18:10:14 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] At Risk: Universal Online Access to All Knowledge
Message-ID: <sympa.1236982137.46723.611@lists.cpsr.org>

At Risk: Universal Online Access to All Knowledge
by Linda Stone

Art. Ref.: 
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/at-risk-universal-online-acces.html

Listen:
http://asp2.readspeaker.net/cgi-bin/radarrsone?lang=us&voice=Paul&customerid=176&url=http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/at-risk-universal-online-acces.html

--

I’ve been following Brewster Kahle and Robert Darnton, a University Professor
and director of Harvard’s Library, recently, and they’re concerned over the
settlement of the lawsuit between Google and the authors and publishers, over
the scanning and use of books in Google Book Search. In my experience, Brewster
is extraordinarily thoughtful and takes a long view. Early in my career, I was
a librarian. I love books. So while I’m not a lawyer and I find this
settlement confusing, I’m writing about it because I think it merits
awareness and a serious discussion.

The key issues appear to be whether the business model created by the
settlement will lock up content that essentially belongs to the public domain
(per Brewster) and whether the publishers’ and authors’ creation of a
Google monopoly for books will harm access to knowledge in the future (per
Darnton). Below, I’m relying on their words to explain this further.

Last week Brewster posted “It’s All About the Orphans”
(http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/02/23/its-all-about-the-orphans/) on
the blog of the Open Content Alliance, focusing on the plight of “orphan
works” - that vast number of books that are still under copyright but whose
authors can no longer be found:

"After digesting the proposed Google Book Settlement, it becomes clear that the
dizzyingly complex agreement is, in essence, an elaborate scheme for the
exploitation of orphan works… The upshot, if the Settlement is approved,
would be legal protection for Google, and only for Google, to scan and provide
digital access to the orphan works. Presto! … So, should the Settlement be
approved, Google will be handed exclusive access to the orphans, and the public
loses out… I, personally, am amazed at this creative use of class action law.
The three parties have managed to skirt copyright law, bypass legislative
efforts, and feather their own nests - all through the clever use of law
intended to remedy harms. This Settlement, if approved by the judge, will
accomplish things appropriate to a legislative body not to private corporate
boardrooms. Let’s live under the rule of law, as arduous as that might be,
and free the orphans, legitimately, not for one corporation but for all of us."

And in “Google & the Future of Books”
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281), an article that Darnton published in
The New York Review of Books last month, the focus is slightly different but
the upshot is the same:

"After reading the settlement and letting its terms sink in—no easy task, as
it runs to 134 pages and 15 appendices of legalese - one is likely to be
dumbfounded: here is a proposal that could result in the world's largest
library… Moreover, in pursuing the terms of the settlement with the authors
and publishers, Google could also become the world's largest book business -
not a chain of stores but an electronic supply service that could out-Amazon
Amazon… The class action character of the settlement makes Google
invulnerable to competition… We are allowing a question of public policy -
the control of access to information - to be determined by private lawsuit…
As an unintended consequence, Google will enjoy what can only be called a
monopoly - a monopoly of a new kind, not of railroads or steel but of access to
information… The settlement creates a fundamental change in the digital world
by consolidating power in the hands of one company… This is also a tipping
point in the development of what we call the information society. If we get the
balance wrong at this moment, private interests may outweigh the public good
for the foreseeable future, and the Enlightenment dream may be as elusive as
ever."

A lot seems to be at stake and the court may approve the settlement in June! I
don't care if the settlement means that Google will get even richer
(disclosure: I’m a Google shareholder). The question is: to what extent will
WE become poorer?

---

-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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Fri Mar 13 18:20:02 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Americans Disapprove of U.N. in Record Numbers
Message-ID: <sympa.1236982311.46723.994@lists.cpsr.org>

Americans Disapprove of U.N. in Record Numbers
FOX NEWS
Friday, March 06, 2009 

Art. Ref.:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506726,00.html

--

The United Nations has never done a worse job in its 60-year history.

That's what Americans think, according to a Gallup poll that shows a meager 26
percent approval rating for the world body — which U.S. taxpayers gave nearly
$3 billion to support last year.

Gallup's test of American attitudes toward the U.N. has become an annual
February tradition in recent years, something like a curmudgeonly groundhog who
always sees his shadow. The poll of roughly 1,000 U.S. adults had a margin of
error of +/– 3 percent.

Since the run-up to the Iraq War, when the U.S. faced stiff opposition to the
coalition invasion, the U.N.'s popularity in its host nation has steadily
dropped. Sixty-five percent of Americans think the sprawling bureaucracy has
done a "poor job" in confronting problems it has to face.

The world body has never polled very high in the 56 years of the Gallup poll,
topping out at 58 percent approval in 2002. But the current drop is hardly
unique; during the Reagan administration, the poll bottomed out at 28 percent,
which stood as a record for over two decades.

The U.N.'s numbers took a similar nosedive in the mid-1990s amid the conclusion
of the Bosnia War (which it tried unsuccessfully to stop) and the Rwandan
genocide, in which it did not intercede.

Even the U.S. Congress, whose approval rating was barely the legal age of
consent back in 2008, has rocketed ahead of the U.N. A FOX News/Opinion
Dynamics Poll from March 3-4 shows that 41 percent of Americans have given
Congress the thumbs up, even in the middle of an economic meltdown.

• Article Links:

Gallup poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116347/United-Nations.aspx

---

-30-

P.S.: How much should the CPSR.org be courting the IGF in the UN's agenda ?____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 14 13:03:03 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:03:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <20090314170315.B11E7E1D4F@smtp3.electricembers.net>

Hi Ginger,

I would be interested in your segment on online 
educational techniques, especially focusing DC. 
If opportunity exists may submit a proposal. Thanking you.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 02:05 PM 3/13/2009, Ginger Paque wrote:
>I am very interested in several Workshops which 
>I think fit with IGC priorities, and interests of others on the list:
>
>n       Remote Participation from both the 
>policy (inclusion) and application (practical) perspectives
>n       Awareness and practical applications for 
>people with disabilities – with the DC?
>n       Online educational techniques perhaps 
>with the DC for digital education
>n       Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, 
>business and government presenting different 
>sides­we had a great discussion on the NN panel 
>last year, but were missing the academic viewpoint.
>
>Ideas? Comments? Thanks!
>
>Ginger
>
>
>----------
>De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Marzo de 2009 04:47 p.m.
>Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Asunto: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
>
>The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary 
>workshop proposals by April 15.
>
>The relevant questionnaire is at` 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-template-for-workshop-proposals>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-template-for-workshop-proposals
>
>The objective here seems to be to get early 
>action on merging workshop proposals which are similar.
>
>IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, 
>and we should do as so as well this time. I 
>suggest that, if there is a workshop you think 
>IGC should submit, please start a topic here for 
>each workshop with a concept so others 
>interested can express interest. Last year, 
>groups working on separate proposals eventually 
>set up their own private mailing lists but 
>included the IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and 
>myself at this stage) and also fed back to the 
>main list regularly as regards their progress.
>
>We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in 
>each case. There is nothing to suggest that 
>proposals after that date will not be looked at. 
>However, it would seem advisable to put a “stake 
>in the ground” as regards workshops where IGC 
>has an ongoing interest. This would seem to 
>include areas such as open access to the 
>internet, critical internet resources, and 
>rights and principles. I am sure there are others.
>
>I urge those who have specific interests in 
>these or other areas to start a topic here to discuss a workshop proposal
>
>
>
>
>Ian Peter
>PO Box 429
>Bangalow NSW 2479
>Australia
>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090314/23b60c05/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 09:52:17 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:52:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Ginger:
I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this theme in current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.

As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a discussion contribute that hasn't already been said. The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection, which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too

________________________________
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:05 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'
Subject: RE: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

I am very interested in several Workshops which I think fit with IGC priorities, and interests of others on the list:

n    Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application (practical) perspectives
n    Awareness and practical applications for people with disabilities - with the DC?
n    Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital education
n    Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, business and government presenting different sides-we had a great discussion on the NN panel last year, but were missing the academic viewpoint.

Ideas? Comments? Thanks!

Ginger

________________________________
De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Marzo de 2009 04:47 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by April 15.

The relevant questionnaire is at` http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-template-for-workshop-proposals

The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop proposals which are similar.

IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to the main list regularly as regards their progress.

We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it would seem advisable to put a "stake in the ground" as regards workshops where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and principles. I am sure there are others.

I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a topic here to discuss a workshop proposal





Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090315/70325303/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 09:54:13 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:54:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Review - call for contributions
In-Reply-To: <D22636A0868D44A1A501AD98212DE454@IAN>
References: <D22636A0868D44A1A501AD98212DE454@IAN>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Ahem
http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf

Does anything more need to be said? ;-)

________________________________
From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] IGF Review - call for contributions

The Secretariat has posted a call for contributions on the IGF Review at www.intgovforum.org<http://www.intgovforum.org/>. All stakeholders are invited to submit comments. An online questionnaire<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009> is available. All contributions received by 24 April will be reflected in a synthesis paper that will serve as a basis for discussions at the consultations on 13 May 2009

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090315/b55a61b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 18:38:15 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:08:15 -0430
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <3D6228228D9444AC83EB0AAFB7DE124A@GINGERLAPTOP>

Very interesting, Milton. 

 

1: MM “I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF,
and for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in
current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of
different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc. “

 

---This could be dynamite! Should we work off-list on a proposal,
participants, other details, and then come back? How would you like to
proceed?

 

2: MM “As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a
discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said. The only new
development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection, which Ralf is
working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too”

 

---I have to think about this. You have opened a very different dimension to
this. Does that mean that NN is not in the area of IG at all?

Tx.

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

  _____  

De: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Enviado el: Domingo, 15 de Marzo de 2009 09:22 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter'
Asunto: RE: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

 

Ginger:

I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and for
civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this theme in current
discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different
actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc. 

 

As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a
discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said. The only new
development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection, which Ralf is
working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too

 

  _____  

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:05 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'
Subject: RE: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

 

I am very interested in several Workshops which I think fit with IGC
priorities, and interests of others on the list:

 

*    Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
(practical) perspectives

*    Awareness and practical applications for people with disabilities –
with the DC?

*    Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital education

*    Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, business and government presenting
different sides—we had a great discussion on the NN panel last year, but
were missing the academic viewpoint.

 

Ideas? Comments? Thanks!

 

Ginger

 

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Marzo de 2009 04:47 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

 

The IGF Secretariat is calling for preliminary workshop proposals by April
15. 

 

The relevant questionnaire is at`
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ
ate-for-workshop-proposals

 

The objective here seems to be to get early action on merging workshop
proposals which are similar.

 

IGC has in the past sponsored various workshops, and we should do as so as
well this time. I suggest that, if there is a workshop you think IGC should
submit, please start a topic here for each workshop with a concept so others
interested can express interest. Last year, groups working on separate
proposals eventually set up their own private mailing lists but included the
IGC Co-coordinators (Ginger and myself at this stage) and also fed back to
the main list regularly as regards their progress.

 

We may or may not meet April 15 deadlines in each case. There is nothing to
suggest that proposals after that date will not be looked at. However, it
would seem advisable to put a “stake in the ground” as regards workshops
where IGC has an ongoing interest. This would seem to include areas such as
open access to the internet, critical internet resources, and rights and
principles. I am sure there are others.

 

I urge those who have specific interests in these or other areas to start a
topic here to discuss a workshop proposal

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090315/920b8c87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Mar 16 07:04:43 2009
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:04:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Milton L Mueller schrieb:

> I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and
> for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this theme in
> current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of
> different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.

This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
the JPA. ;-)

> As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a
> discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said. 

I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF and related
 transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly focused on
regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for example has
also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
management", e.g. here:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-00>
They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with the massive
volume of P2P traffic:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01>

Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the end-to-end
principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues. One of our
colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the CCC nerds in
Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.

Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves here
recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess some technical
capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)

> The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection,

Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates around the
world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in Germany now. :-(

> which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too

I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also be a nice
chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on Internet
Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of Expression.

Best, Ralf

PS: My recent conference paper on DPI governance is here:
<http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/Paper_Ralf-Bendrath_DPI_v1-5.pdf>
Feedback is more than welcome.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Mar 16 10:08:45 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:08:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <49be5d6ddbc56_5ac81555555879b410@weasel10.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090316/11a21ffa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 10:11:25 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:11:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <779E3DCC-F45F-4162-A44C-45EF3D233871@ras.eu.org>


Le 16 mars 09 à 12:04, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :

> Milton L Mueller schrieb:
>
>> As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a
>> discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said.
>
> [...]
> Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves here
> recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess some  
> technical
> capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)

Exactly, and probably not only _technical_ capacity building. One of  
the - many - aspects I'd fbe interested to discuss is the reasons why  
some old issues are now being reframed into NN issues, by whom/which  
actors, and what are the implications of this reframing.
e.g. content filtering is more an more addressed as a NN issue,  
rather than a content censorship (i.e. a right violation) issue.

In any case, an IGC workshop is worth proposing on this theme.
Best,
Meryem

--
Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Mon Mar 16 10:32:59 2009
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:32:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <49be5d6ddbc56_5ac81555555879b410@weasel10.tmail>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <49be5d6ddbc56_5ac81555555879b410@weasel10.tmail>
Message-ID: <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>

hi,

interesting as the ICANN workshop was, it needs to have equal
contribution by the civil libertarians interested in the defense against
the fervor of those who fight against crime.  and needs to have much
more contribution from those sitting in the house as opposed to just
those on stage.

a.


On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 11:08 -0300, vanda wrote:
> hi all
>  After the success we had in our session in ICANN Mexico about
> e-crimes  legislations & experiences, I believe we should have similar
> IGF session with a broader scope.  At ICANN we just debated DNS
> related crimes - of course it represents a large portion of e-related
> crimes, but the proposals are far below the general issues affecting
> internet 
> just my 2 cents
> Vanda Scartezini
> 
> 
> 
> Em 16/03/2009 08:04, Ralf Bendrath   escreveu:
> 
>         
>         Milton L Mueller schrieb:
>         
>         > I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for
>         the IGF, and
>         > for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this
>         theme in
>         > current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC,
>         discussions of
>         > different actions of national governments, forum shopping,
>         etc.
>         
>         This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please
>         do not
>         equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about
>         the MAG and
>         the JPA. ;-)
>         
>         > As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What
>         would a
>         > discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said. 
>         
>         I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF
>         and related
>         transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly
>         focused on
>         regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for
>         example has
>         also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
>         management", e.g. here:
>         
>         They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with
>         the massive
>         volume of P2P traffic:
>         
>         
>         Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the
>         end-to-end
>         principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues.
>         One of our
>         colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the
>         CCC nerds in
>         Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.
>         
>         Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves
>         here
>         recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess
>         some technical
>         capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)
>         
>         > The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet
>         Inspection,
>         
>         Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates
>         around the
>         world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in
>         Germ any now. :-(
>         
>         > which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be
>         useful, too
>         
>         I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also
>         be a nice
>         chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on
>         Internet
>         Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of
>         Expression.
>         
>         Best, Ralf
>         
>         PS: My recent conference paper on DPI governance is here:
>         
>         Feedback is more than welcome.
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>         
> 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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 12:26:43 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:26:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Roel of Govenrments
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C9B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Milton L Mueller: 
I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and  for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this theme in current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.

Ralph:
This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and the JPA. ;-)

Wolfgang:
The pressure for governmental involvement in Internet Governance does not come from ICANN or IGF, it comes from the reality of life. Internet has left already long ago the microcosm of the technical and other limited communities and is touching the big macrocosm of the political, eocnomic and social problems of the world.  If governments are dealing with security and economic stability the Internet willö become unavoidably part of their policy. What I expect is that we will see soon something what I have labeld IG 20, that is a governmental G 20 working group dealing with security and other issues related to the Internet. We will discuss this in a special session during the forthcoming 10th meeting of the ICANN Studienkreis in Barcelona, October 15 - 16, 2009. A workshop under the 4th IGF would be more than appropriate.
 
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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Mar 16 15:30:21 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:30:21 +1100
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>
Message-ID: <3BAC2A5EF1B54F7CB65873318C15975A@IAN>



Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
We seem to be getting a few interesting proposals talked about here.

Can I suggest that for each workshop we wish to present or be involved with
we start a separate topic so we can discuss in more detail? Otherwise we
will lose track. Also, it will be necessary at some time before mid April to
get the proposal into the format suggested on the igf website
(www.intgovforum.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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com  Mon Mar 16 15:58:02 2009
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:58:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Call_for_papers:_Revista_de_Direito_?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?de_Inform=E1tica_e_Telecomunica=E7=F5es_(RDIT)_[Brazil]?=
Message-ID: <490d0ba60903161258y4b1c981eoa44aef036bf8d8b8@mail.gmail.com>

fyi

Abraços,
Sérgio
____________________________________

Call for papers

Revista  de  Direito  de  Informática  e Telecomunicações (RDIT)  is a
 law  journal published by ABDI - Associação Brasileira de Direito de
Informática e Telecomunicações,  the Brazilian Telecommunications and
Computer  Law  Association,  in  a  partnership  with Editora Fórum.
RDIT  focuses on discussions  related  to the  legal  aspects  of
Information  Technology  and Telecommunications  Law.  It  is
published  on  a  half-yearly basis.

The proposals  for articles  to be published  in  the RDIT  can  be
sent  in  electronic  format  to  the  e-mail abdi at abdi.org.br  or  by
means  of  the ABDI website. The  papers  should  attach  the
following  data:  name  of  the  author,  his/her  academic  and
professional qualifications, complete address, telephone and e-mail.

The articles  for  publication  in  the  Revista  de  Direito  de
Informática  e Telecomunicações  –  RDIT  must  be:  (i)  unpublished
works,  (ii)  of  a  scientific  and academic nature  in  relation  to
 the  topics characterizing RDIT, and  (iii) at  the criteria of the
editorial  staff,  be  compatible with  the  standards  of  editorial
quality  sought  by  the publication.  Preference will be given to
material written by authors that are not members of  the ABDI
Executive Office, and who have not published articles  in  the  two
issues of RDIT immediately preceding the one for which the article  is
 intended. Once published in this  Review,  the  article may  also  be
 published  in  books  and  collections,  provided  the original
publication is cited.

Submission of material for publication and  its receipt by RDIT does
not give rise to any obligation on the part of ABDI or Editora Fórum
to publish the work.

The works should be typed in Word format, Times New Roman font, size
12, with a space of 1.5 between the lines; paragraphs should be in
full justification. The paper size should be A4 and the margins
identical to 3 cm. The average number of written pages  is 15/40.

The texts should be revised and the wording should be appropriate for
a scientific publication.

The original articles should be presented in a complete form, within
the following structure:  title  of  the  article,  name  of  the
author,  qualifications  (masters’  or  doctorate degrees,  titles
held and so on), abstract of  the article, key words, summary of  the
article, epigraph  (if  applicable),  text of  the article, abstract
of  the article  in a  foreign  language, key  words  in  a  foreign
language,  references.  Further  instructions  are  available  at  the
website: <www.editoraforum.com.br>.

It is recommended that highlighting of all texts be in italics,
avoiding boldface and underlining.   All quotations  (words,
expressions,  periods) must be carefully checked  by the authors
and/or translators; citations of long texts (over three lines) should
make up an independent paragraph with an indention of 2 cm (with
justification alignment), using the simple space between the lines and
font size 10; short quotations (up to three lines) should be  inserted
 into  the  text,  between  quotation  marks  and  should  not  be  in
 italics. Expressions  in a foreign  language should be standardized,
and highlighted  in  italics. Use of op. cit.,  ibidem and  idem
should be avoided  in bibliographic notes, substituting  them by using
the full name of the work.

The works will be selected by the Officers and Editorial Council of
the Review. If there is interest in publishing the material sent, the
author will be informed of the volume in which his/her contribution
will be published, and confirmation of  the author’s  interest and
formal authorization  for publication will be  requested.   The works
received and not published will not be returned.  No copyrights or any
other remuneration will be payable for  publication  of  the works.
The  author will  receive  free  of  charge  two  issues  of  the
Review that has published his/her work.

The  opinions  issued  by  the  authors  of  the  articles  are  of
their  exclusive responsibility.

Any doubts may be clarified by telephone at the number (31) 2121-4913
or by e-mail: <conselho at editoraforum.com.br>.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Instruções, Instructions.rar
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 384153 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090316/40c7a363/attachment.obj>

From vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Mar 16 17:07:04 2009
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:07:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>	 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>	 <49be5d6ddbc56_5ac81555555879b410@weasel10.tmail> <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>
Message-ID: <001d01c9a67b$2bb525d0$831f7170$@com.br>

Totally agree Avri, anyway it is more and more a key issue in governance.
 Kisses
vanda

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:33 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for workshop proposals

hi,

interesting as the ICANN workshop was, it needs to have equal
contribution by the civil libertarians interested in the defense against
the fervor of those who fight against crime.  and needs to have much
more contribution from those sitting in the house as opposed to just
those on stage.

a.


On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 11:08 -0300, vanda wrote:
> hi all
>  After the success we had in our session in ICANN Mexico about
> e-crimes  legislations & experiences, I believe we should have similar
> IGF session with a broader scope.  At ICANN we just debated DNS
> related crimes - of course it represents a large portion of e-related
> crimes, but the proposals are far below the general issues affecting
> internet 
> just my 2 cents
> Vanda Scartezini
> 
> 
> 
> Em 16/03/2009 08:04, Ralf Bendrath   escreveu:
> 
>         
>         Milton L Mueller schrieb:
>         
>         > I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for
>         the IGF, and
>         > for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this
>         theme in
>         > current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC,
>         discussions of
>         > different actions of national governments, forum shopping,
>         etc.
>         
>         This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please
>         do not
>         equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about
>         the MAG and
>         the JPA. ;-)
>         
>         > As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What
>         would a
>         > discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said. 
>         
>         I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF
>         and related
>         transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly
>         focused on
>         regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for
>         example has
>         also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
>         management", e.g. here:
>         
>         They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with
>         the massive
>         volume of P2P traffic:
>         
>         
>         Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the
>         end-to-end
>         principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues.
>         One of our
>         colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the
>         CCC nerds in
>         Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.
>         
>         Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves
>         here
>         recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess
>         some technical
>         capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)
>         
>         > The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet
>         Inspection,
>         
>         Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates
>         around the
>         world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in
>         Germ any now. :-(
>         
>         > which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be
>         useful, too
>         
>         I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also
>         be a nice
>         chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on
>         Internet
>         Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of
>         Expression.
>         
>         Best, Ralf
>         
>         PS: My recent conference paper on DPI governance is here:
>         
>         Feedback is more than welcome.
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>         
> 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

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

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

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

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


From apisan at servidor.unam.mx  Mon Mar 16 19:42:01 2009
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:42:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> 
 <7F37A7B2F1CE41228AFB8E6573EBA7A8@GINGERLAPTOP> 
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5BC0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
 <49BE324B.9020408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>  <49be5d6ddbc56_5ac81555555879b410@weasel10.tmail>
 <1237213979.2319.494.camel@bower>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0903162340410.28389@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Avri,

re participation from those not on the stage, you may want to ask for 
references about the breakout session for Latin America and the Caribbean, 
after the workshop on e-Crime and DNS abuse in Mexico City, which was 
turned into an essentially non-stage participant-driven discussion.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Avri Doria wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:32:59 -0400
> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for workshop proposals
> 
> hi,
>
> interesting as the ICANN workshop was, it needs to have equal
> contribution by the civil libertarians interested in the defense against
> the fervor of those who fight against crime.  and needs to have much
> more contribution from those sitting in the house as opposed to just
> those on stage.
>
> a.
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 11:08 -0300, vanda wrote:
>> hi all
>>  After the success we had in our session in ICANN Mexico about
>> e-crimes  legislations & experiences, I believe we should have similar
>> IGF session with a broader scope.  At ICANN we just debated DNS
>> related crimes - of course it represents a large portion of e-related
>> crimes, but the proposals are far below the general issues affecting
>> internet
>> just my 2 cents
>> Vanda Scartezini
>>
>>
>>
>> Em 16/03/2009 08:04, Ralf Bendrath   escreveu:
>>
>>
>>         Milton L Mueller schrieb:
>>
>>        > I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for
>>         the IGF, and
>>        > for civil society to be the initators. I see echoes of this
>>         theme in
>>        > current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC,
>>         discussions of
>>        > different actions of national governments, forum shopping,
>>         etc.
>>
>>         This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please
>>         do not
>>         equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about
>>         the MAG and
>>         the JPA. ;-)
>>
>>        > As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What
>>         would a
>>        > discussion contribute that hasn’t already been said.
>>
>>         I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF
>>         and related
>>         transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly
>>         focused on
>>         regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for
>>         example has
>>         also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
>>         management", e.g. here:
>>
>>         They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with
>>         the massive
>>         volume of P2P traffic:
>>
>>
>>         Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the
>>         end-to-end
>>         principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues.
>>         One of our
>>         colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the
>>         CCC nerds in
>>         Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.
>>
>>         Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves
>>         here
>>         recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess
>>         some technical
>>         capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)
>>
>>        > The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet
>>         Inspection,
>>
>>         Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates
>>         around the
>>         world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in
>>         Germ any now. :-(
>>
>>        > which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be
>>         useful, too
>>
>>         I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also
>>         be a nice
>>         chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on
>>         Internet
>>         Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of
>>         Expression.
>>
>>         Best, Ralf
>>
>>         PS: My recent conference paper on DPI governance is here:
>>
>>         Feedback is more than welcome.
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>         For all list information and functions, see:
>>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD. La informacion contenida en este 
mensaje es confidencial; puede contener informacion sobre actividades 
academicas, administrativas o de investigacion relacionada con la 
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, por lo cual, de no ser usted 
la persona o entidad a la que va dirigida, se entiende que hubo un error. 
En este caso, favor de contactar al remitente respondiendo este correo y 
elimine de su sistema el original, incluyendo sus archivos, sin conservar 
copia de los mismos. Queda prohibida cualquier revision, retransmision, 
distribucion o cualquier otro uso o accion relacionada con esta 
informacion, hecha por personas o entidades distintas a los destinatarios 
a los que ha sido dirigida.

Aviso sin acentos.

************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING - DISCLAIMER. The content of this 
message, its links and attachments  are confidential. They may include 
information concerning academic, administrative or research activities 
related with the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (National 
Autonomous University of Mexico). Therefore, should you receive this 
message without being the intended recipient/addressee, it is understood 
you received it in error. In such a case, please contact the sender by 
replying to this message; delete the original message , including its 
attachments and links; and do not keep any copy thereof. Any 
examination, forwarding, distribution, dissemination, disclosure  or the 
taking of any action in reliance thereof or pursuant thereto, by any 
individual or entity other than the recipient/addressee, is strictly 
prohibited.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ocl at gih.com  Tue Mar 17 10:04:02 2009
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:04:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN> <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP> <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk> <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP> <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk> <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com> <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <3A46F8F3E845480DA03A71AEF0D51877@GIH.CO.UK>

""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet
> Governance?
>
> 1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government
> sends whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision
> making capacity at home). Additionally as long as there is no
> solution for the China/Taiwan issue and Russia is only an observer
> GAC is not really representative.
>

You are describing what you see in today's GAC. You yourself mention
"an enhanced GAC". Would this not show a path to enhancing
participation at the GAC, improving some of the GAC delegates by 
asking
respective governments to do so? I am not so critical of the GAC
because whilst there may well be some "low level bureaucrats", I think
that there are also some very good people there who yield a fair
bit of incluence back home. Maybe we have to support them for them
to gain an increased voice back home?
We also have to remember that ICANN started out as an "experiment".
Ten years ago, governments might have seen ICANN's place as less
important than it is today.

> 2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced
> cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process)
> negotiated within the UN system . Makes also little sense because
> such treaty negotiations would last for 15 years or more.
>

If negotiated within the UN system, you're entirely right. How about
negotiating *outside* the UN system? Is this at all possible?

> 3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)
>

Agreed, although it is worth noting that the OECD's recent
internet-related publications were of very high standard.

> 4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the
> major players and has the power to push various organisations which
> have negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue
> basis.

[...abbreviated so save space...]

> But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz too
> narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes
> BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an
> IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture
> where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network
> where the various institutions act in their specific roles without
> subordination but with mutual respect. This would be one step int
> this new territory of unchartered water which is called cyberspace.
>

You proposition intrigued me. At the Mexico ICANN meeting, I mentioned
to several people that it was time for more respect between the
different "process streams" because the Internet is such a strategic
resource today, if we all worked together rather than against each
other, perhaps would we be able to be more pro-active in finding
solutions to the big problems that face us, like Spam, online criminal
behaviour (of all sorts), IPv4 address exhaustion, etc.
I am also a firm proposer that IPv6 adoption might produce the 
catalyst
in activity analogous to the DotCom boom in the nineties which will
create jobs and new income streams - and be one component
(out of many others) which will help us all out of worldwide 
recession.
But that's another chapter altogether, so let's go back to G20:

You mention using the G20 as a basis for selecting a subset of
countries having an internet institutional architecture. Is this
really so? How about using another selection process, say the 20
countries having the largest number of hosts?
Ref:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2184rank.html

which admittedly rules out any African or Middle Eastern country, so 
it
may not be perfect either.

Or how about the 20 countries having the longest history of Internet
connectivity, which admittedly amounts to more than 20 countries but
gives a couple more African & Middle Eastern countries a say?
Ref:
http://www.nsrc.org/codes/bymap/ntlgy/dates/da9311.htm

I am suggesting this because the G20 is heavily biaised against
Africa, whilst some countries in Africa had internet connectivity
before many G20 countries, and also against Middle Eastern countries.
Having a governance process relying heavily on G20 countries will, I'm
afraid, again favour the information haves against the information
have-nots. Is this what we would like to promote?

Now when you speak of mutual respect between processes, I am all for 
it,
but the roles will have to be distributed formally, otherwise we might 
well
see some rivalry between organisations. I am aware that if it was so 
easy to
do, we would have already done it - in some cases, I suspect that the
attitude of some individuals need to change with time...

Warmest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 17 11:06:08 2009
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:06:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
In-Reply-To: <3A46F8F3E845480DA03A71AEF0D51877@GIH.CO.UK>
References: <91A08771A679454D94E66673DCC49283@IAN>
	 <41001449A78D4CBAB25418DC6FC72A22@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <7BtpmVRcdOuJFAYi@perry.co.uk>
	 <6AB963BED20C4F4AA2B2F18EBC7F8543@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <yvyLd2SjsQuJFAbQ@perry.co.uk>
	 <2bd6d7670903120654q586054dqea8d5254bef013ec@mail.gmail.com>
	 <947a5260903120720l22d3d9aao6569ed2ed66c4624@mail.gmail.com>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE10@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718C80@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <3A46F8F3E845480DA03A71AEF0D51877@GIH.CO.UK>
Message-ID: <f7e605ab0903170806v7c2437ddh43fa883c98919e6d@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Olivier,

I like the debate you raised about different fora in which this discussion
could take place. I agree that the “choice” of a forum is not evident and we
should keep an open mind.

I don´t believe that a long history of Internet connectivity should be a
criteria for the closer involvement of countries. To leave out of the debate
countries that achieved later connectivity is to condemn them to be even
more aloof of the important decisions that are being made. Maybe they´ll
find out in the future that everything that mattered has already been
decided for them.

As for G20, I don´t think that it is biased against African countries. There
is just a divergence of goals, mostly when it comes to one specific subject,
which is the debate around agriculture in WTO. To take part on the
agriculture debate, many African countries (that rely on small property
family agriculture) have preferred to join the G33.

But if we take into consideration that the WTO Round is stalled
indefinitely, what will be the roles of G20 and G33? Maybe it would be time
for countries to rethink about this group division. If the role of
governments will change towards more interventionism in all areas, including
IG, G20 and G33 will probably have to face en enlargement of their original
roles and of the consensual base that kept them together. The
standing-points of countries in G20 and G33 can be approximated in many
other areas.

Best wishes

Marília


2009/3/17 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>

> ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet
>> Governance?
>>
>> 1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government
>> sends whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision
>> making capacity at home). Additionally as long as there is no
>> solution for the China/Taiwan issue and Russia is only an observer
>> GAC is not really representative.
>>
>>
> You are describing what you see in today's GAC. You yourself mention
> "an enhanced GAC". Would this not show a path to enhancing
> participation at the GAC, improving some of the GAC delegates by asking
> respective governments to do so? I am not so critical of the GAC
> because whilst there may well be some "low level bureaucrats", I think
> that there are also some very good people there who yield a fair
> bit of incluence back home. Maybe we have to support them for them
> to gain an increased voice back home?
> We also have to remember that ICANN started out as an "experiment".
> Ten years ago, governments might have seen ICANN's place as less
> important than it is today.
>
> 2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced
>> cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process)
>> negotiated within the UN system . Makes also little sense because
>> such treaty negotiations would last for 15 years or more.
>>
>>
> If negotiated within the UN system, you're entirely right. How about
> negotiating *outside* the UN system? Is this at all possible?
>
> 3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)
>>
>>
> Agreed, although it is worth noting that the OECD's recent
> internet-related publications were of very high standard.
>
> 4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the
>> major players and has the power to push various organisations which
>> have negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue
>> basis.
>>
>
> [...abbreviated so save space...]
>
> But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz too
>> narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes
>> BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an
>> IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture
>> where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network
>> where the various institutions act in their specific roles without
>> subordination but with mutual respect. This would be one step int
>> this new territory of unchartered water which is called cyberspace.
>>
>>
> You proposition intrigued me. At the Mexico ICANN meeting, I mentioned
> to several people that it was time for more respect between the
> different "process streams" because the Internet is such a strategic
> resource today, if we all worked together rather than against each
> other, perhaps would we be able to be more pro-active in finding
> solutions to the big problems that face us, like Spam, online criminal
> behaviour (of all sorts), IPv4 address exhaustion, etc.
> I am also a firm proposer that IPv6 adoption might produce the catalyst
> in activity analogous to the DotCom boom in the nineties which will
> create jobs and new income streams - and be one component
> (out of many others) which will help us all out of worldwide recession.
> But that's another chapter altogether, so let's go back to G20:
>
> You mention using the G20 as a basis for selecting a subset of
> countries having an internet institutional architecture. Is this
> really so? How about using another selection process, say the 20
> countries having the largest number of hosts?
> Ref:
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2184rank.html
>
> which admittedly rules out any African or Middle Eastern country, so it
> may not be perfect either.
>
> Or how about the 20 countries having the longest history of Internet
> connectivity, which admittedly amounts to more than 20 countries but
> gives a couple more African & Middle Eastern countries a say?
> Ref:
> http://www.nsrc.org/codes/bymap/ntlgy/dates/da9311.htm
>
> I am suggesting this because the G20 is heavily biaised against
> Africa, whilst some countries in Africa had internet connectivity
> before many G20 countries, and also against Middle Eastern countries.
> Having a governance process relying heavily on G20 countries will, I'm
> afraid, again favour the information haves against the information
> have-nots. Is this what we would like to promote?
>
> Now when you speak of mutual respect between processes, I am all for it,
> but the roles will have to be distributed formally, otherwise we might well
> see some rivalry between organisations. I am aware that if it was so easy
> to
> do, we would have already done it - in some cases, I suspect that the
> attitude of some individuals need to change with time...
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090317/b6bb3671/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 17 11:39:10 2009
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
Message-ID: <82766.46899.qm@web110202.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


Congract, Marillia
 
It is a view I have held  for sometime now. I think the distribution stream  needs to really look at some other  criteria other than the norm  such that developing world  and others being sidelined could effectively contribute on the network. what wrong does  it make when some high levels meetings are held in , say, Africa - forget the known fact that interms of  connectivity ratings  are   LOW. 
 
Have you again also thought about the publicity it might bring  to africa? The "old friends club"  artitude should give way to genuine concern and interest of the development of the African continent. Indeed  back in Africa, we think the only means  of overcoming our challenge is  LEAPFROGGING  and it takes  involvement in   ICT activities.We need all the encouragement and meaningful support- if it has to take some further sacrifices it should worth it.
 
I'm again careful I don't  put Africa in the picture too much , but for now it is what I could cite as example.
 
EBENEZER ANNANG
 
 
Every fora ; if you don't here the Americas  then Europe etc.
 

--- On Tue, 3/17/09, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Article: "Italy moves to place controls on Internet
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:06 AM



Dear Olivier, 
I like the debate you raised about different fora in which this discussion could take place. I agree that the “choice” of a forum is not evident and we should keep an open mind. 
I don´t believe that a long history of Internet connectivity should be a criteria for the closer involvement of countries. To leave out of the debate countries that achieved later connectivity is to condemn them to be even more aloof of the important decisions that are being made. Maybe they´ll find out in the future that everything that mattered has already been decided for them.
As for G20, I don´t think that it is biased against African countries. There is just a divergence of goals, mostly when it comes to one specific subject, which is the debate around agriculture in WTO. To take part on the agriculture debate, many African countries (that rely on small property family agriculture) have preferred to join the G33. 
But if we take into consideration that the WTO Round is stalled indefinitely, what will be the roles of G20 and G33? Maybe it would be time for countries to rethink about this group division. If the role of governments will change towards more interventionism in all areas, including IG, G20 and G33 will probably have to face en enlargement of their original roles and of the consensual base that kept them together. The standing-points of countries in G20 and G33 can be approximated in many other areas.
Best wishes
Marília


2009/3/17 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>

""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 

<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:


What are the options fort a role of governments in Internet
Governance?

1. an enhanced GAC. Makes no real sense if you look which government
sends whom to the GAC (low level buerocrats with no real decision
making capacity at home). Additionally as long as there is no
solution for the China/Taiwan issue and Russia is only an observer
GAC is not really representative.


You are describing what you see in today's GAC. You yourself mention
"an enhanced GAC". Would this not show a path to enhancing
participation at the GAC, improving some of the GAC delegates by asking
respective governments to do so? I am not so critical of the GAC
because whilst there may well be some "low level bureaucrats", I think
that there are also some very good people there who yield a fair
bit of incluence back home. Maybe we have to support them for them
to gain an increased voice back home?
We also have to remember that ICANN started out as an "experiment".
Ten years ago, governments might have seen ICANN's place as less
important than it is today. 



2. an international treaty (as a result of the process of enhanced
cooperation among governments as part of the WSIS process)
negotiated within the UN system . Makes also little sense because
such treaty negotiations would last for 15 years or more.


If negotiated within the UN system, you're entirely right. How about
negotiating *outside* the UN system? Is this at all possible? 



3. OECD (is unlikely because it is not universal)


Agreed, although it is worth noting that the OECD's recent
internet-related publications were of very high standard. 



4. An high level intergovernmental political body which inlcudes the
major players and has the power to push various organisations which
have negotiations power to start processes on an issue by issue
basis.

[...abbreviated so save space...] 



But the world has changed since 2000 and the  G 7 would be todaz too
narrow if it comes to the Internet. You need the G 20 which includes
BRIC. The acronym which I propose for this would be IG 20. With an
IG 20 you would have a gobal Internet institutional architecture
where IGF, ICANN and IG 20 would be combined in form of a network
where the various institutions act in their specific roles without
subordination but with mutual respect. This would be one step int
this new territory of unchartered water which is called cyberspace.


You proposition intrigued me. At the Mexico ICANN meeting, I mentioned
to several people that it was time for more respect between the
different "process streams" because the Internet is such a strategic
resource today, if we all worked together rather than against each
other, perhaps would we be able to be more pro-active in finding
solutions to the big problems that face us, like Spam, online criminal
behaviour (of all sorts), IPv4 address exhaustion, etc.
I am also a firm proposer that IPv6 adoption might produce the catalyst
in activity analogous to the DotCom boom in the nineties which will
create jobs and new income streams - and be one component
(out of many others) which will help us all out of worldwide recession.
But that's another chapter altogether, so let's go back to G20:

You mention using the G20 as a basis for selecting a subset of
countries having an internet institutional architecture. Is this
really so? How about using another selection process, say the 20
countries having the largest number of hosts?
Ref:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2184rank.html

which admittedly rules out any African or Middle Eastern country, so it
may not be perfect either.

Or how about the 20 countries having the longest history of Internet
connectivity, which admittedly amounts to more than 20 countries but
gives a couple more African & Middle Eastern countries a say?
Ref:
http://www.nsrc.org/codes/bymap/ntlgy/dates/da9311.htm

I am suggesting this because the G20 is heavily biaised against
Africa, whilst some countries in Africa had internet connectivity
before many G20 countries, and also against Middle Eastern countries.
Having a governance process relying heavily on G20 countries will, I'm
afraid, again favour the information haves against the information
have-nots. Is this what we would like to promote?

Now when you speak of mutual respect between processes, I am all for it,
but the roles will have to be distributed formally, otherwise we might well
see some rivalry between organisations. I am aware that if it was so easy to
do, we would have already done it - in some cases, I suspect that the
attitude of some individuals need to change with time...

Warmest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html 




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

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


-----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/20090317/cd6c235f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Mar 17 13:10:17 2009
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:10:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals
Message-ID: <954259bd0903171010g637e8f1dq82f61a2ea5bf1bb@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

A word of explanation on the call for workshops proposals issued by the IGF
secretariat, as it is a slightly different procedure that in the previous
years.

During the February consultations and the MAG meeting, it appeared clearly
that the traditional method of asking people to propose fully developed
workshop proposals (complete with co-sponsors and potential panelists) had
two unexpected but damaging consequences :
- several proposals on similar subjects were prepared separately with great
efforts and great commitment from proponents,
- it became therefore particularly difficult to encourage them to merge
afterwards, as they became naturally strongly committed to their specific
approach

The general result was in the first three years the abundance of workshops
that everybody recognizes as difficult to handle for the participants.

The process proposed this year is therefore a bit different, taking
advantage of the fact that we are starting a little bit earlier. The
objective is to encourage people to first submit themes rather than
full-fledged proposals, with arguments and reasons why the theme should be
addressed. This represents for all IGF participants an opportunity to have
an increased influence on the Agenda of the meeting itself (as issues can be
proposed by people who do not have the capacity to organize a workshop
themselves). It is also a way to facilitate grouping different proposals
together and encourage proponents to join forces to co-organize one session
instead of several in parallel.

In Hyderabad, the community underscored that different issues have different
levels of "maturity" or "ripeness", and the MAG has basically identified
three categories that could correspond to different workshop formats (what
is below is my own formulation of the three categories) :
- issues where people do not agree yet on the nature of the problem and
where a more complete picture needs to be drawn before trying to identify
solutions : such issues would benefit from expert panels, laying out the
different dimensions,
- issues where people are clearly aware of the different aspects at stake
but disagree on the appropriate approach or objectives; these would benefit
from very interactive workshops with a lot of participation from the room
- issues where a basic agreement has emerged on what needs to be done and
where the challenge is to synergize concerted action among the different
concerned stakeholders; this category could benefit from "roundtable
formats" gathering the key actors involved in order to help them distribute
responsibilities and coordinate action.

As the discussion in the IGC progresses, I felt it was important to describe
this new context. Several interesting issues have been raised on the list so
far and the IGC can play a very important role in discussing a relatively
extensive list of themes, and then seeing how they could be grouped in
clusters. This will help the work of the Secretariat and the MAG immensely.
.

I hope these background elements will be useful.

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090317/3d39f102/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 13:42:32 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:42:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903171010g637e8f1dq82f61a2ea5bf1bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <954259bd0903171010g637e8f1dq82f61a2ea5bf1bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Thanks for this very useful clarification, Bertrand.

I want to take issue with some of the analysis behind it, but in general I agree with the intent of the new approach and appreciate your giving us clear advance notice of it.

The problem with past workshops was NOT that proposers had the ability to propose and execute "fully developed" proposals. Many of the best and most productive workshops followed that partern. The problem was that the Secretariat did not feel as if it was in a position to discriminate between fully-developed proposals that were executed well, and those that were thrown together at the last minute with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder mixes.

The saving grace of this "anything goes" policy was that it allowed a few applicants to put together high-quality Workshops that were unfiltered and had a clear vision of what they were trying to do. It also meant that for every one of those, there were one or two sloppy and unbalanced ones. But people could vote with their feet, and they did. Indeed, all of the IGP Workshops for the last three years have been packed, because they had sharply defined themes, balanced collections of panelists and dealt with real, substantive issues not fluff and self-promotion.

The clear and present danger from what you describe as the new approach is that all proposals have to be run through the political wringer of the MAG. This is a good way to make Workshops become bland and meaningless, or, (worse) ensnare their proposers in months of political negotiations with clueless or hostile partners. I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened last time with the IPv6 main session panel. Making the content of workshops into a collective decision of the entire IGF is a sure-fire way to ensure that the Workshops become as boring and useless as most of the main sessions have been. Your new process seems to put the MAG at the center of grouping proposals and selecting themes, and the whole point of the Workshops was that it offered a free space outside of that.

I hope that when you start grouping "theme" proposers together, you do so with open eyes.

That means: recognize, please, that for every pressing and important topic in Internet governance, there is someone or some group who would prefer that we not talk about it at all.

That means: Do not throw together people who want to undermine or prevent discussion of a topic with the people who really want to discuss the issue, and expect them to work out a good program.

That means: do not throw together people who want to talk about related, but quite different things. (e.g., in the IPv6 panel there were people who wanted simply to promote migration to IPv6, and there were people who wanted to talk about the transitional problems caused by the shortage of IPv4 addresses. Those two ideas were fundamentally incompatible as topics, and we wasted lots of time trying to reconcile them.)

In other words, up to now the Workshops, because they are relatively free, have been the saving grace of the IGF. I hope that doesn't get spoiled with the new approach. It could have disastrous consequences for attendance at the next meeting.

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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:10 PM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals

Dear all,

A word of explanation on the call for workshops proposals issued by the IGF secretariat, as it is a slightly different procedure that in the previous years.

During the February consultations and the MAG meeting, it appeared clearly that the traditional method of asking people to propose fully developed workshop proposals (complete with co-sponsors and potential panelists) had two unexpected but damaging consequences :
- several proposals on similar subjects were prepared separately with great efforts and great commitment from proponents,
- it became therefore particularly difficult to encourage them to merge afterwards, as they became naturally strongly committed to their specific approach

The general result was in the first three years the abundance of workshops that everybody recognizes as difficult to handle for the participants.

The process proposed this year is therefore a bit different, taking advantage of the fact that we are starting a little bit earlier. The objective is to encourage people to first submit themes rather than full-fledged proposals, with arguments and reasons why the theme should be addressed. This represents for all IGF participants an opportunity to have an increased influence on the Agenda of the meeting itself (as issues can be proposed by people who do not have the capacity to organize a workshop themselves). It is also a way to facilitate grouping different proposals together and encourage proponents to join forces to co-organize one session instead of several in parallel.

In Hyderabad, the community underscored that different issues have different levels of "maturity" or "ripeness", and the MAG has basically identified three categories that could correspond to different workshop formats (what is below is my own formulation of the three categories) :
- issues where people do not agree yet on the nature of the problem and where a more complete picture needs to be drawn before trying to identify solutions : such issues would benefit from expert panels, laying out the different dimensions,
- issues where people are clearly aware of the different aspects at stake but disagree on the appropriate approach or objectives; these would benefit from very interactive workshops with a lot of participation from the room
- issues where a basic agreement has emerged on what needs to be done and where the challenge is to synergize concerted action among the different concerned stakeholders; this category could benefit from "roundtable formats" gathering the key actors involved in order to help them distribute responsibilities and coordinate action.

As the discussion in the IGC progresses, I felt it was important to describe this new context. Several interesting issues have been raised on the list so far and the IGC can play a very important role in discussing a relatively extensive list of themes, and then seeing how they could be grouped in clusters. This will help the work of the Secretariat and the MAG immensely. .

I hope these background elements will be useful.

Best

Bertrand

--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090317/ec069d97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From klohento at panos-ao.org  Wed Mar 18 16:01:11 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:01:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0903120325q7df5b390je6322072e461440d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B7B457.3070708@panos-ao.org>	 <43c2faf80903110752l3e994d66hcddd9d6955caebca@mail.gmail.com>	 <a6bc8cb30903111005x364f4620q2c3a8c803100fa51@mail.gmail.com> <ecb172de0903120325q7df5b390je6322072e461440d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49C15307.3050108@panos-ao.org>

Dear all

Please find attached recommendations adopted on IGF in West Africa 
following the one day forum we organized (and also recommendations on 
legal frameworks of the information society in West Africa, discussed 
during the first two days).  

Regarding IGF in West Africa, it appears to me that in general people 
don't feel at ease or don't well understand the international process 
itself (even thought they have a better understanding or are even 
experts in issues, taken in isolation, encompassed in the Internet 
Governance concept) and the review is hard for them to be undertaken.

We will update in the coming days the website with recommendations and 
presentations (translated in adequate languages), more photos.

Regards

KL


Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
> Dear Ken
>
> Thanks for the link.
> Will contact off list on the issue of African reworking together on IG 
> issues
>
> Warmly
>
> NAA
>
> On 3/11/09, *Ken Lohento* <klohento at panos-ao.org 
> <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Arron, Bernard
>
>     Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the
>     whole workshop.
>
>     http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/
>
>     Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several
>     issues) - But we need to work together so that all African regions
>     meet and discuss on those issues (like what East Africa also did
>     recently)
>
>     Regards
>
>     KL
>
>     Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
>
>         Hi Ken
>
>         That is brilliant.
>         However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central
>         African region? If the central African region to which I
>         belong is inclusive, what is the link for participation so
>         that we can hook up
>
>         Appreciatively
>
>         Aaron.
>
>         On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com> <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Hey,
>            Nice to here that.
>            Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>            secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>            Cheers...
>            B/.
>            Bernard SADAKA
>            Orkila International Offshore
>            Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>            SNA building, 10th floor
>            P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>            Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>            Fax    : +961 1 218858
>            Mobile: +961 3 172377
>            Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>>
>            ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>            On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>            <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>
>         <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>>>
>         wrote:
>
>                Dear all
>
>                For your information, we are organizing one day
>         discussions on
>                IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional
>         meeting
>                on legal and policy issues of the information society
>         in West
>                Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the
>         agenda
>                on IGF.
>
>                Regards
>
>                Ken L
>              
>          ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>


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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cadres juridiques_Recommandations_IPAO_OSIWA_workshop.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53686 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090318/680b4e38/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Strengthening Regional IG_PIWA_OSIWA_workshop_recommendations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090318/680b4e38/attachment-0001.pdf>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar 19 09:41:32 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:41:32 +0500
Subject: [governance] Sharing an article on FOSS - Changing Mindsets - How
 do you change a whole country's perception
Message-ID: <701af9f70903190641i321b206csf34ac630c54e7a62@mail.gmail.com>

Changing Mindsets
How do you change a whole country's perception - For the Educated Lots

(Fouad Bajwa, Independent Discussion, 19-03-2009) "How much will a
Ubuntu Linux CD cost in Pakistan", this student of University of
Jamshoro asks me via SMS after a session of exchanging introductory
messages, "My friend gave me your number when I asked about that where
can I acquire an original CD for an operating system?" she clarifies.
She further inquires, "Where can I get a free Ubuntu CD?" to which I
reply, "The CD is free to order, will be land mailed to you for free,
you can use it for free and after you have benefited from it, pass it
on to your friends because it takes around 2-3 weeks to be delivered!"
I continue to share, " and it's pretty simple to order, you can visit
http://shipit.ubuntu.com, register a free user account and order a
server or desktop Linux Operating System Free Ubuntu CD!".

After four years today, nearly half a million Ubuntu Linux CDs have
been distributed for free, either by http://shipit.ubuntu.com or by
volunteers in Pakistan. I know about more than a hundred thousand CDs
distributed by Ubuntu volunteers, friends and myself. This is the
current scenario of an environment of local demand for adoption and
use of Free and Open Source Software FOSS in Pakistan. I used Ubuntu
Linux for the first time before taking up the responsibility for
evolving its community and the ecosystem for generating a demand and
supply system, when I wanted to something other than my copy of
Windows Xp. I had trouble with it, it was too slow after all that I
had to test and with every new development environment, I would delete
this system file or that. My friends on the network could knock over
my machine for fun and the bugs were climbing up my brains every day
in and out! I was in search for freedom, I was looking for my freedom
of choice! I had used Linux before at work and now I wanted to use it
again as a solace to my operating system troubles.

I respected Intellectual Property being a Computer & IT Professional
(I am both a undergrad and graduate in both CS and IT). My peers had
educated me to respect other peers' intellectual assets and to
encourage others to respect mine. But, we lived in a false and
artificial economy where everyone would wag their tails to the current
trend! Y2K then was a big thing but we lacked lots of important
software in the local market. We resorted to downloading free software
from the Internet and exchanged information with peers all over the
world using the web. We had to find a solution to the problem before
the so called lights blacked out. Out of knowledge, we downloaded a
lot of FOSS technologies and platforms. In the years to follow, I
would adopt PHP-MySQL-Linux-MySQL (LAMP) to solve my web needs, earn
my bread & butter as well as complete research contracts online. I was
to learn to use various other technologies and platforms without the
word Windows in them. It was fun, I could run my FOSS solutions on
Windows too. The somehow bonded for some reason to be differentiated
valued later on.

I wanted to share these findings with other people. I did so during my
service in the govt. When I left the govt. I brought it to the
academic sector and civil society. I grew an affiliation with like
minded people and FOSS users all over the world and got a visit to see
the amazing things they were doing with their solutions in their
countries, both developed and under developed. I thought for a moment,
to share the spirit for mutual respect of intellectual property with
my local friends and others in my city. I tried to remove bugs from my
research work using Ubuntu Linux, today, thousands of my countrymen
continue to do so from Karachi to Quetta to Peshawar to Islamabad and
of course, in Lahore, I thought you would figure that out already.
>From now, it's about you, us and we. We are a community, we work for
each others continued benefit. We want to help each other keep away
from stealing other people's property, prosper with open and inclusive
technology, grow together as a nation.

You know about Ubuntu Linux, now your family members, your friends and
colleagues know about Linux in general, everyone that has installed
software on their or someone's computer definitely knows about Linux
or even the words FOSS or Free Software. I can relate to this mindset
as a result of evident change. I feel happy that the FOSS platform
developed by the old community members of the Debian Linux
Distribution and thousands of others under the umbrella of
www.Ubuntu.com and www.Launchpad.net is used widely or people know
about it to a large extent in the Government, Academia, Civil Society
and Private Sectors and has reached this level due to our volunteers
and people who use it for learning, fun, research, work or business,
finding it very useful.

We have visited your offices, we have written stories and case studies
about you. We have shared with the world that you are an aspiring and
inspiring nation. You are open to intellectual change. You are free to
experiment and adopt. Thank you Pakistan for sharing the freedoms of
Free and Open Source Software FOSS and by the way don't forget to
continue sharing it with your friends and neighbors!

Bravo to the students of the University of Jamshoro in Sindh,
Pakistan! Bravo to all of you, that has at least thought about Linux
or FOSS! Welcome to Freedom of Choice, congratulations for accepting
change!

-- 

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 siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:24:00 2009
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
Message-ID: <463364.64253.qm@web110201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

 
Hi Ken,
Thanks  for the information.
 
Really it has been a worry to some of us, and if you read the mail i sent on the network  3 days ago, you would have gotten the point I was putting across(refer)
 well, what is the west african or if you want african caucus site? we need to update our selves on regional  governance processes and also  help fast track  processes.
 
It is only when we begin the processes that we can get some support. It is only Africans that can develop themselves. All other   overtures are  "push" 
 
I call on African scientist, academics, civil society, government , the youth  and all stakeholders concern to show interest in IGF activities.
Ebenezer  Annang


--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:


From: Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] West Africa and IGF
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, africann at afrinic.net
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 1:01 PM


Dear all

Please find attached recommendations adopted on IGF in West Africa 
following the one day forum we organized (and also recommendations on 
legal frameworks of the information society in West Africa, discussed 
during the first two days).  

Regarding IGF in West Africa, it appears to me that in general people 
don't feel at ease or don't well understand the international process 
itself (even thought they have a better understanding or are even 
experts in issues, taken in isolation, encompassed in the Internet 
Governance concept) and the review is hard for them to be undertaken.

We will update in the coming days the website with recommendations and 
presentations (translated in adequate languages), more photos.

Regards

KL


Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
> Dear Ken
>
> Thanks for the link.
> Will contact off list on the issue of African reworking together on IG 
> issues
>
> Warmly
>
> NAA
>
> On 3/11/09, *Ken Lohento* <klohento at panos-ao.org 
> <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Arron, Bernard
>
>     Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the
>     whole workshop.
>
>     http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/
>
>     Aaron, yes it's a West African meeting (focus due to several
>     issues) - But we need to work together so that all African regions
>     meet and discuss on those issues (like what East Africa also did
>     recently)
>
>     Regards
>
>     KL
>
>     Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit :
>
>         Hi Ken
>
>         That is brilliant.
>         However, when you say regional, does that exclude the central
>         African region? If the central African region to which I
>         belong is inclusive, what is the link for participation so
>         that we can hook up
>
>         Appreciatively
>
>         Aaron.
>
>         On 3/11/09, *SDK AAA* <sdkaaa at gmail.com
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com> <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Hey,
>            Nice to here that.
>            Maybe it would be a good idea to send the link to the igf
>            secretariat so that they put your link on their website.
>            Cheers...
>            B/.
>            Bernard SADAKA
>            Orkila International Offshore
>            Beirut, Achrafieh, Tabaris
>            SNA building, 10th floor
>            P.O. Box: 16 - 6933 Lebanon
>            Tel     : +961 1 218862 / 3 / 52
>            Fax    : +961 1 218858
>            Mobile: +961 3 172377
>            Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com <mailto:sdkaaa at gmail.com>>
>            ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>            On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Lohento
>            <klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>
>         <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org <mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org>>>
>         wrote:
>
>                Dear all
>
>                For your information, we are organizing one day
>         discussions on
>                IGF in West Africa, within the framework of a regional
>         meeting
>                on legal and policy issues of the information society
>         in West
>                Africa, from 11 to 13 March. See file attached for the
>         agenda
>                on IGF.
>
>                Regards
>
>                Ken L
>              
>          ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>


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

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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090319/42f966b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From maxsenges at gmail.com  Thu Mar 19 12:52:27 2009
From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:52:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] your values online - trying to understand what maters
 to you?!
Message-ID: <4d976d8e0903190952g595dc327k7bc93fd9e4b80001@mail.gmail.com>

Hi IGClers,

In collaboration with Rafael Capurro (www.capurro.de/home-eng.html) and
Michael Nagelborg (http://www.michaelnagenborg.de/) I would like to invite
you to share your perception of what are the important aspects when we talk
about values and rights online. While as you know the Internet Rights and
Principles coalition advocates a Rights based approach to IG, i think it is
important to start with a humanistic perception of the internet and make
sure peoples values are taken into consideration.

The short questionnaire [it's really just 5 questions] @
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pJviHeJuXvKLHVF71peNAKg is meant
to allow us to understand what really matters to you as netizen so we can
strategize & formulate our research project proposals based on empirical
evidence.

Yours,

Max

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

Dr. Max Senges

www.maxsenges.com
www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com

-------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090319/703b4b89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From robin at ipjustice.org  Thu Mar 19 13:46:00 2009
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:46:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
 Society Participation in ICANN!
Message-ID: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>

Call for Action: We need your comments to Support Civil Society  
Participation in ICANN!

ICANN is in the midst of a significant reform of its policy-making  
body, the Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO).  Following the  
recommendations provided by the London School of Economics, the ICANN  
Board is set to increase the participation of civil society, and  
approve a charter for a new, more influential Noncommercial  
Stakeholders Group.  ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC)  
has recently submitted a Charter Proposal for the new Noncommercial  
Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Links to the Charter Proposal, an  
Executive Summary and Organization Chart are at the end of this message.

How can you help support civil society participation in ICANN policy  
making?

ICANN is soliciting comments on the NCSG Charter Proposal.  Comments  
are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions- 
charters at icann.org.  Below are some reasons you can include in your  
comments.

****

Subject: Approve the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by NCUC

Dear ICANN Board:

Please support the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by the  
Noncommercial User Constituency.

Why should the ICANN Board support the proposal?

Most importantly, the proposal integrates all policy deliberation and  
voting of the NCSG into a unified structure. By doing so, the  
proposed structure:

•    Ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on  
the GNSO Council has support across all constituencies.
•    Supports the formation of consensus positions on policy taken by  
the NCSG, not allowing individual constituencies to control specific  
GNSO Council seats and votes.
•    Enhances representation by lowering barriers to participation  
and the formation of constituencies, allowing a far more diverse set  
of interests and coalitions to easily form.

****

Show your support for civil society in ICANN policy making, submit  
your comments today!

Thank you,

Robin Gross, Chair
Noncommercial Users Constituency

Executive Summary of NCSG Charter Proposal: http://gnso.icann.org/en/ 
improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-proposal.pdf

NCSG Petition-Charter:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf

NCSG Organization Chart:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-organization-chart.pdf





IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090319/fdea802e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Mar 20 06:31:01 2009
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (ken lohento)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:31:01 +0000
Subject: [governance] West Africa and IGF
In-Reply-To: <463364.64253.qm@web110201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <463364.64253.qm@web110201.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49C37065.9010209@panos-ao.org>

annan ebenezer a écrit :

> what is the west african or if you want african caucus site?
>

African WSIS CS caucus list:  It's here... 
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/africa

You can also require subscription to and engage in the Africann list

https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

cheers

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

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


From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 20 08:32:03 2009
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (Annan Ebenezer)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] 
Message-ID: <sympa.1237552211.11755.346@lists.cpsr.org>

could we brainstorm on this:  who owns the internet?

thanks to all
ebenezer
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 08:36:59 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:06:59 -0430
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1237552211.11755.346@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1237552211.11755.346@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP>

I will be interested to read if anybody thinks the Internet has an owner. I
don't think it does. I suppose we could say the users own it.

Why do you ask?

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009 08:02 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] 

could we brainstorm on this:  who owns the internet?

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

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

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

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


From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 20 08:42:01 2009
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (Annan Ebenezer)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: 6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP
Message-ID: <sympa.1237552795.12345.112@lists.cpsr.org>

 well, indeed one can easily say  that nobody owns it , but what really 
supports that assertion ? 

ebenezer, Ghana
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 08:46:39 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:16:39 -0430
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1237552795.12345.112@lists.cpsr.org>
References: 6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP <sympa.1237552795.12345.112@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <069BD53835E448968CB6D5FB59583480@GINGERLAPTOP>

I think that ownership is the assertion that must be supported, not
"non-ownership". I cannot substantiate "non-ownership" of an object. I can
show proof of purchase, document my acquisition or construction, or assert
that "possession" implies ownership. I have never heard of anyone claiming
to own the Internet.

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009 08:12 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: Re: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?

 well, indeed one can easily say  that nobody owns it , but what really 
supports that assertion ? 

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

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

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

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


From puna_gb at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 20 08:49:32 2009
From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
Message-ID: <658348.57810.qm@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I agree Ginger. I think we all own the internet.. In some way or other - we are all stakeholders... (i.e. "we each have a stake and we hold it")...
 
No one person owns the internet.

--- On Fri, 3/20/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Annan Ebenezer'" <siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 2:36 PM


I will be interested to read if anybody thinks the Internet has an owner. I
don't think it does. I suppose we could say the users own it.

Why do you ask?

Ginger



Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09



www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009 08:02 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] 

could we brainstorm on this:  who owns the internet?

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090320/53df6e47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 20 09:03:32 2009
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (Annan Ebenezer)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: 658348.57810.qm@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1237554114.12345.136@lists.cpsr.org>


  was it the US that brought the internet? 

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

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


From cls at rkey.com  Fri Mar 20 09:13:04 2009
From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:13:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <069BD53835E448968CB6D5FB59583480@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: 6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP <sympa.1237552795.12345.112@lists.cpsr.org> <069BD53835E448968CB6D5FB59583480@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <49C39660.5080501@rkey.com>

My Ph.D dissertation dealt extensively with the very similar question of 
who "controls" the Internet. My conclusion was that the deployment of 
power on the Internet, as in any human society, is best understood as a 
relationship between guides, gatekeepers, and peers.

There may not be an identifiable owner/gatekeeper for the Internet as a 
whole, but one can certainly identify gatekeepers for specific resources 
and processes. When the subject turns to overarching principles, values, 
and norms (the unenforced rules that human agents nevertheless feel 
owned by), one can identify the guides who first articulated them. 
Finally, the actions of peers serve to amplify the powers of guides and 
gatekeepers: transactions between peers generally recapitulate and 
entrench the institutional standing of all agents within the system. 
Peers can also instantiate new standings, creating new forms of 
ownership and control, but that's another story.

If you're interested in a wordier version of what I just wrote, here's a 
link to the dissertation:

http://www.rkey.com/essays/diss.pdf

Craig Simon

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I think that ownership is the assertion that must be supported, not
> "non-ownership". I cannot substantiate "non-ownership" of an object. I can
> show proof of purchase, document my acquisition or construction, or assert
> that "possession" implies ownership. I have never heard of anyone claiming
> to own the Internet.
> 
> Ginger
> 
>  
> 
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
> 
> DiploFoundation
> 
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
> 
>  
> 
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> 
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] 
> Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009 08:12 a.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Asunto: Re: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
> 
>  well, indeed one can easily say  that nobody owns it , but what really 
> supports that assertion ? 
> 
> ebenezer, Ghana
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Mar 20 09:20:44 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:20:44 +0100
Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
References: <sympa.1237554114.12345.136@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718CF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

There was a GAO Report from the year 2000 which touched the issues of ownership and property of the Internet, in particular the status of the "control of the authoritative root server". The GAO ist the US Congress oversight body over the US government. It this paper http://www.icann.org/en/general/gao-report-07jul00.pdf the GAO analyzes whther the US Department of Commerce did have a right to delegate responsibilities to ICANN via the MoU from Ocgober 1998. 
 
The key passge of the report is below in full text::

" The question of whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or ternational agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer. Since the Department states that it has no plans to transfer the root server system, it has not examined these issues. Currently, under the cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, the Department has reserved final policy control over the authoritative root server."

The situation is rather unchanged today. If the DOC should plan to terminate the JPA in October 2009 this would not mean that the control over the root server system would be transfered. This control is subject of the IANA contract and the USG has made clear several times (in particular in its statement with the four principles from July 2005) that it does not intend to delegate this authority to anybody.

 

Wolfgang


________________________________

Von: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Fr 20.03.2009 14:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?




  was it the US that brought the internet?

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

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


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

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


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Fri Mar 20 11:19:50 2009
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718CF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <sympa.1237554114.12345.136@lists.cpsr.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718CF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903201118210.10475@osaka.law.miami.edu>

Indeed.

For US law-cenctric analysis of the situation, please see "Wrong Turn in 
Cyberspace: Using Icann to Route Around the APA and the Constitution",
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=252523


On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

> There was a GAO Report from the year 2000 which touched the issues of ownership and property of the Internet, in particular the status of the "control of the authoritative root server". The GAO ist the US Congress oversight body over the US government. It this paper http://www.icann.org/en/general/gao-report-07jul00.pdf the GAO analyzes whther the US Department of Commerce did have a right to delegate responsibilities to ICANN via the MoU from Ocgober 1998.
>
> The key passge of the report is below in full text::
>
> " The question of whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or ternational agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer. Since the Department states that it has no plans to transfer the root server system, it ha
 s not examined these issues. Currently, under the cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, the Department has reserved final policy control over the authoritative root server."
>
> The situation is rather unchanged today. If the DOC should plan to terminate the JPA in October 2009 this would not mean that the control over the root server system would be transfered. This control is subject of the IANA contract and the USG has made clear several times (in particular in its statement with the four principles from July 2005) that it does not intend to delegate this authority to anybody.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Fr 20.03.2009 14:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
>
>
>
>
>  was it the US that brought the internet?
>
> ebenezer
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 14:47:36 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fw: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
Message-ID: <960019.39923.qm@web45202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Dear Ginger I also can not imagine that someone would think Internet has got the owner!,. I hope everybody have  this believes that the only owners are the users;
I loved your site it is very interesting and informative.
Dina
 :


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Annan Ebenezer'" <siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 5:36 AM


I will be interested to read if anybody thinks the Internet has an owner. I
don't think it does. I suppose we could say the users own it.

Why do you ask?

Ginger



Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09



www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009 08:02 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] 

could we brainstorm on this:  who owns the internet?

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090320/a59b88fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 15:12:21 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:12:21 +1100
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718CF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <A9447AF25E0447A2B4FED06F452F0A78@IAN>

Relating Wolfgang's comments to Annan's question -

I am going to agree with the statement that no single person or entity owns
the Internet. I would go further and say I don't think there is even
collective ownership by all of us, although all of us might claim some
ownership of small parts of it (particularly bits of content, or in some
cases pipes and servers). But the whole here is much greater than the sum of
its parts so I find collective ownership difficult as well.

Which does not mean there is no need for governance. We don’t own rivers or
oceans or air or land either (apologies to any nation states or humans
arrogant enough to feel they own these things). But we do need to regulate
their use in various ways and have in place protective measures to ensure
they are available in a healthy state and an equitable manner for all of us.

And I think the Internet is like that - we do need to regulate and manage
for its overall health and its equitable availability. I think the ICANNs
and IANA agreements and other such early governance structures need to be
evaluated against basic principles like this for their current value in a
regulatory structure for Internet protection.



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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: 21 March 2009 00:21
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Annan Ebenezer; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
> 
> There was a GAO Report from the year 2000 which touched the issues of
> ownership and property of the Internet, in particular the status of the
> "control of the authoritative root server". The GAO ist the US Congress
> oversight body over the US government. It this paper
> http://www.icann.org/en/general/gao-report-07jul00.pdf the GAO analyzes
> whther the US Department of Commerce did have a right to delegate
> responsibilities to ICANN via the MoU from Ocgober 1998.
> 
> The key passge of the report is below in full text::
> 
> " The question of whether the Department has the authority to transfer
> control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to
> answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based
> on any statute or ternational agreement, the government has long been
> instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name
> system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the
> domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is
> uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of
> government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is
> government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the
> management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of
> government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite
> authority to effect such a transfer. Since the Department states that it
> has no plans to transfer the root server system, it has not examined these
> issues. Currently, under the cooperative agreement with Network Solutions,
> the Department has reserved final policy control over the authoritative
> root server."
> 
> The situation is rather unchanged today. If the DOC should plan to
> terminate the JPA in October 2009 this would not mean that the control
> over the root server system would be transfered. This control is subject
> of the IANA contract and the USG has made clear several times (in
> particular in its statement with the four principles from July 2005) that
> it does not intend to delegate this authority to anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Annan Ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Fr 20.03.2009 14:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: RE: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   was it the US that brought the internet?
> 
> ebenezer
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Mar 20 20:45:07 2009
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:45:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who owns the Internet?
In-Reply-To: <6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <sympa.1237552211.11755.346@lists.cpsr.org>
 <6D9C977E2F2A43F1813D579FFEAC60CA@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <20090321010545.35783678D7@smtp1.electricembers.net>

At 13:36 20/03/2009, Ginger Paque wrote:
>I will be interested to read if anybody thinks the Internet has an owner. I
>don't think it does. I suppose we could say the users own it.
>Why do you ask?
>Ginger

Dear Ginger,
the question is the same as who owns the world?

- Some will say the people. So says the WSIS for the Internet (a 
people centric information society) - and ISOC implicitly says the 
users, that Paul Twomey translates in "those who pay ICANN" (Paris, 2008).

- The USC has a definition which tends to say that the Internet is 
under its jurisdiction. What the Tunis agreement tends to confirm for 
the Internet Legacy, the Internet new emergence relating to enhanced 
cooperations the USG prevented the elaboration to protect ICANN.

- Some others will say God or nature. As the one who can change or stop it..

A. Who can change it :

Since the Internet is men designed as (RFC 2026) "a loosely-organized 
international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, 
supports host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to 
open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards"  people 
who can change the protocols and procedures are its (co-)owners.

RFC 3935 says that : "The IETF has traditionally been a community for 
experimentation with things that are not fully understood, 
standardization of protocols for which some understanding has been 
reached, and publication of (and refinement of) protocols originally 
specified outside the IETF process.". This means that those who build 
and can change the Internet are ultimately the IETF Members, but 
actually in refining what is specified/triggered outside, i.e. by 
leading users. In Internet lingo, leads users are named "@larges".

These @large can change (build and rebuild) the internet in its two 
mains areas of adherence:
- governance: social adherence - what is discussed here.
- internance (*): technical adherence - what IETF missed a forum for 
and we created the IUCG for (Internet Users Contributing Group, 
http://iucg.org - iucg at ietf.org - charter:  http://iucg.org/wiki/IUCG_Charter)

However, there is a big difference between the capacity to change and 
the control of the change. Complexity and size dramatically reduced 
the capacity to initiate and control a change as one single body. 
This is why ICANN is not paying much attention to @larges.

This is changing through the work france at large and others are 
carrying on the "Internet PLUS" concept as an architecture, a testing 
possibility, and a transition strategy (IUCG Draft under work: 
http://iucg.org/drafts/draft-iucg-innov-dep-strat-00.txt). The power 
to transform the Internet belongs then to anyone with a good idea and 
a testing/demonstration ability (due to viral dissemination)

That is, if there was not - as for the world - the people hysteresis. 
i.e. the capacity not to immediately understand, accept, and adapt to 
that good idea. So, it belongs to those who can control that 
hysteresis through laws, publicity, influence :
- the mission of the IETF is to influence those who design, use and 
manage the Internet
- the commercial world (cf. RFC 3869) where IAB says: "The principal 
thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main 
source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the 
Internet infrastructure could be in trouble."

B. Who can stop it

There are three of them :
- the IANA owner -hence the USG controlled ICANN/Google IANA "war".
- cyberwarfare units
- bots and hackers - an increasingly worrying issue

The only alternative at that level is the @large's response of a 
distributed architecture of usage, answering the call for a person 
centric multilingual information society.

jfc
(*) taken as "technical administration, operations and governance".






   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090321/e78c312b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Mar 21 13:56:42 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:56:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


Let me add my voice to Robin's in encouraging people on this list to weigh in on this issue. Civil society participation in global governance institutions is one of the main "causes" of this caucus, and here is a situation in which it really matters to fight for this principle. If we can get ICANN to accept our charter proposal, the civil society voice in ICANN will be strengthened. If they adopt another proposal, it will be fragmented and weakened. Please help us get this done.

Comments are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions-charters at icann.org<mailto:sg-petitions-charters at icann.org>.

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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:46 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil Society Participation in ICANN!
Call for Action: We need your comments to Support Civil Society Participation in ICANN!

ICANN is in the midst of a significant reform of its policy-making body, the Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO).  Following the recommendations provided by the London School of Economics, the ICANN Board is set to increase the participation of civil society, and approve a charter for a new, more influential Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.  ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) has recently submitted a Charter Proposal for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Links to the Charter Proposal, an Executive Summary and Organization Chart are at the end of this message.

How can you help support civil society participation in ICANN policy making?

ICANN is soliciting comments on the NCSG Charter Proposal.  Comments are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions-charters at icann.org<mailto:sg-petitions-charters at icann.org>.  Below are some reasons you can include in your comments.

****

Subject: Approve the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by NCUC

Dear ICANN Board:

Please support the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by the Noncommercial User Constituency.

Why should the ICANN Board support the proposal?

Most importantly, the proposal integrates all policy deliberation and voting of the NCSG into a unified structure. By doing so, the proposed structure:

*    Ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on the GNSO Council has support across all constituencies.
*    Supports the formation of consensus positions on policy taken by the NCSG, not allowing individual constituencies to control specific GNSO Council seats and votes.
*    Enhances representation by lowering barriers to participation and the formation of constituencies, allowing a far more diverse set of interests and coalitions to easily form.

****

Show your support for civil society in ICANN policy making, submit your comments today!

Thank you,

Robin Gross, Chair
Noncommercial Users Constituency

Executive Summary of NCSG Charter Proposal: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-proposal.pdf

NCSG Petition-Charter:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf

NCSG Organization Chart:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-organization-chart.pdf




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090321/fbf7c2b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 01:16:45 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:16:45 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?

For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
"cybersafety" constituency proposal.

If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
on IG.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim


On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Let me add my voice to Robin's in encouraging people on this list to weigh
> in on this issue. Civil society participation in global governance
> institutions is one of the main "causes" of this caucus, and here is a
> situation in which it really matters to fight for this principle. If we can
> get ICANN to accept our charter proposal, the civil society voice in ICANN
> will be strengthened. If they adopt another proposal, it will be fragmented
> and weakened. Please help us get this done.
>
>
>
> Comments are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to:
> sg-petitions-charters at icann.org.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:46 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
> Society Participation in ICANN!
>
> Call for Action: We need your comments to Support Civil Society
> Participation in ICANN!
>
>
>
> ICANN is in the midst of a significant reform of its policy-making body, the
> Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO).  Following the recommendations
> provided by the London School of Economics, the ICANN Board is set to
> increase the participation of civil society, and approve a charter for a
> new, more influential Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.  ICANN’s
> Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) has recently submitted a Charter
> Proposal for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Links to the
> Charter Proposal, an Executive Summary and Organization Chart are at the end
> of this message.
>
>
>
> How can you help support civil society participation in ICANN policy making?
>
>
>
> ICANN is soliciting comments on the NCSG Charter Proposal.  Comments are due
> by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions-charters at icann.org.
> Below are some reasons you can include in your comments.
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> Subject: Approve the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by NCUC
>
>
>
> Dear ICANN Board:
>
>
>
> Please support the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by the Noncommercial User
> Constituency.
>
>
>
> Why should the ICANN Board support the proposal?
>
>
>
> Most importantly, the proposal integrates all policy deliberation and voting
> of the NCSG into a unified structure. By doing so, the proposed structure:
>
>
>
> •    Ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on the GNSO
> Council has support across all constituencies.
>
> •    Supports the formation of consensus positions on policy taken by the
> NCSG, not allowing individual constituencies to control specific GNSO
> Council seats and votes.
>
> •    Enhances representation by lowering barriers to participation and the
> formation of constituencies, allowing a far more diverse set of interests
> and coalitions to easily form.
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> Show your support for civil society in ICANN policy making, submit your
> comments today!
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Robin Gross, Chair
>
> Noncommercial Users Constituency
>
>
>
> Executive Summary of NCSG Charter Proposal:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-proposal.pdf
>
>
>
> NCSG Petition-Charter:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf
>
>
>
> NCSG Organization Chart:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-organization-chart.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.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  Sun Mar 22 06:18:08 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:18:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92271309-2B31-40EE-B123-2F810E9E62AB@graduateinstitute.ch>

McTim,

I would strongly second Milton's comment, this is precisely the sort  
of thing IGC folks should be weighing in on, it affects actual  
governance processes much more than does the precise composition of an  
annual conference's panels and program committee.

A caucus statement would be great, but so would statements by  
individual and organizational members of the caucus.  Actually, I  
would suggest statements, plural.  There are two sets of issues here  
that are politically linked but institutionally separate, so it'd be  
better to address them separately.

*the NCUC proposal on how the new NCSG should be organized, and an  
alternative proposal on same from the censorship group that is  
designed solely to hard wire the process to give them a seat on the  
GNSO counsel no matter what.  The comment space is at the bottom of http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#sg-petitions 
.  The deadline for submissions is April 15.

*The censorship constituency petition.   The comment space is at the  
bottom of http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety.  The  
deadline for submissions is April 5.

Best,

Bill

On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:16 AM, McTim wrote:

> Milton,
>
> Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
>
> For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
> "cybersafety" constituency proposal.
>
> If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
> current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
> on IG.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me add my voice to Robin's in encouraging people on this list  
>> to weigh
>> in on this issue. Civil society participation in global governance
>> institutions is one of the main "causes" of this caucus, and here  
>> is a
>> situation in which it really matters to fight for this principle.  
>> If we can
>> get ICANN to accept our charter proposal, the civil society voice  
>> in ICANN
>> will be strengthened. If they adopt another proposal, it will be  
>> fragmented
>> and weakened. Please help us get this done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Comments are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to:
>> sg-petitions-charters at icann.org.
>>
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>> ------------------------------
>> Internet Governance Project:
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:46 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support  
>> Civil
>> Society Participation in ICANN!
>>
>> Call for Action: We need your comments to Support Civil Society
>> Participation in ICANN!
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN is in the midst of a significant reform of its policy-making  
>> body, the
>> Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO).  Following the  
>> recommendations
>> provided by the London School of Economics, the ICANN Board is set to
>> increase the participation of civil society, and approve a charter  
>> for a
>> new, more influential Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.  ICANN’s
>> Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) has recently submitted a  
>> Charter
>> Proposal for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Links  
>> to the
>> Charter Proposal, an Executive Summary and Organization Chart are  
>> at the end
>> of this message.
>>
>>
>>
>> How can you help support civil society participation in ICANN  
>> policy making?
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN is soliciting comments on the NCSG Charter Proposal.   
>> Comments are due
>> by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions-charters at icann.org 
>> .
>> Below are some reasons you can include in your comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject: Approve the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by NCUC
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear ICANN Board:
>>
>>
>>
>> Please support the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by the  
>> Noncommercial User
>> Constituency.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why should the ICANN Board support the proposal?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most importantly, the proposal integrates all policy deliberation  
>> and voting
>> of the NCSG into a unified structure. By doing so, the proposed  
>> structure:
>>
>>
>>
>> •    Ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on  
>> the GNSO
>> Council has support across all constituencies.
>>
>> •    Supports the formation of consensus positions on policy taken  
>> by the
>> NCSG, not allowing individual constituencies to control specific GNSO
>> Council seats and votes.
>>
>> •    Enhances representation by lowering barriers to participation  
>> and the
>> formation of constituencies, allowing a far more diverse set of  
>> interests
>> and coalitions to easily form.
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>> Show your support for civil society in ICANN policy making, submit  
>> your
>> comments today!
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> Robin Gross, Chair
>>
>> Noncommercial Users Constituency
>>
>>
>>
>> Executive Summary of NCSG Charter Proposal:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-proposal.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> NCSG Petition-Charter:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> NCSG Organization Chart:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-organization-chart.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>>
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 14:14:01 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:44:01 -0430
Subject: [governance] Gender-based workshop
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD8388E66869417185E46F463BFDD019@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post on this thread any interest and ideas you have for a
gender-focused Workshop in conjunction with the Gender DC. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:14:01 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:44:01 -0430
Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread
Message-ID: <CEB1B8B6F888425A852E5C06386BB5C2@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your ideas for a NN Workshop on this thread. I have pasted below
the previous discussion I found. Thanks.

 

Ginger suggested:

Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, business and government presenting
different sides-we had a great discussion on the NN panel last year, but
were missing the academic viewpoint.


 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu

As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a
discussion contribute that hasn't already been said. The only new
development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection, which Ralf is
working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too

 

Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de

I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF and related
 transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly focused on
regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for example has
also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
management", e.g. here:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-00>
They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with the massive
volume of P2P traffic:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01>

Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the end-to-end
principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues. One of our
colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the CCC nerds in
Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.

Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves here
recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess some technical
capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)

> The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection,

Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates around the
world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in Germany now.
:-(

> which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too

I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also be a nice
chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on Internet
Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of Expression.

 


Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>

Exactly, and probably not only _technical_ capacity building. One of the -
many - aspects I'd fbe interested to discuss is the reasons why some old
issues are now being reframed into NN issues, by whom/which actors, and what
are the implications of this reframing. 
e.g. content filtering is more an more addressed as a NN issue, rather than
a content censorship (i.e. a right violation) issue. 

In any case, an IGC workshop is worth proposing on this theme.
Best,
Meryem

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/8214be9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:18:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:48:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
Message-ID: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of government
in IG on this thread.

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu

I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and for
civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in current
discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different
actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc. 

Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de

This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
the JPA. ;-)

 

 

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/f56dcda7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:18:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:48:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on e-crimes, legisltation and experiences
Message-ID: <9973C0CAA78B4D408FEAA8A2B6B54F69@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your ideas and interest in a Workshop on e-crimes, legislation
and experiences on this thread.

vanda <vanda at uol.com.br>

hi all
 After the success we had in our session in ICANN Mexico about e-crimes
legislations & experiences, I believe we should have similar IGF session
with a broader scope.  At ICANN we just debated DNS related crimes - of
course it represents a large portion of e-related crimes, but the proposals
are far below the general issues affecting internet
just my 2 cents
Vanda Scartezini


Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
interesting as the ICANN workshop was, it needs to have equal
contribution by the civil libertarians interested in the defense against
the fervor of those who fight against crime.  and needs to have much
more contribution from those sitting in the house as opposed to just
those on stage.
a.

Totally agree Avri, anyway it is more and more a key issue in governance.
(Vanda)

Avri,
Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
re participation from those not on the stage, you may want to ask for
references about the breakout session for Latin America and the Caribbean,
after the workshop on e-Crime and DNS abuse in Mexico City, which was turned
into an essentially non-stage participant-driven discussion.

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/25c131f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:18:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:48:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Online educational techniques
Message-ID: <26E80D18D0764262A1895CA47F8C8839@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your interest and ideas on a workshop on online educational
techniques on this thread.

 

Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital education
(Ginger)

 

I would be interested in your segment on online educational techniques,
especially focusing DC. If opportunity exists may submit a proposal.
Thanking you.

Hakikur Rahman email at hakik.org

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/08d84076/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:20:26 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:50:26 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on awareness and practical applications for
 people with disabilities
Message-ID: <FCC3AC67AF51482DBF25DD89CDF0B8AB@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your interest and ideas in a workshop on awareness and practical
applications for people with disabililties.

 

Awareness and practical applications for people with disabilities - with the
DC? (Ginger)

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/ddf40e69/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:21:21 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:51:21 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
Message-ID: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>

Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this thread.

 

Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
(practical) perspectives (Ginger)

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/0946b1b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Sun Mar 22 14:39:07 2009
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:39:07 -0300
Subject: [governance] Workshop on e-crimes, legisltation and experiences
References: <9973C0CAA78B4D408FEAA8A2B6B54F69@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <AE1B4632D53748968222DB36ADF3F388@home>

I agree with Vanda, e-crime has a key role nowadays and I believe it should 
deserve at least one workshop, specially about ways to combat it worldwide 
(treaties and conventions for example).

Omar


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ginger Paque
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 15:18
Subject: [governance] Workshop on e-crimes, legisltation and experiences


Please post your ideas and interest in a Workshop on e-crimes, legislation 
and experiences on this thread.
vanda <vanda at uol.com.br>
hi all
 After the success we had in our session in ICANN Mexico about e-crimes 
legislations & experiences, I believe we should have similar IGF session 
with a broader scope.  At ICANN we just debated DNS related crimes - of 
course it represents a large portion of e-related crimes, but the proposals 
are far below the general issues affecting internet
just my 2 cents
Vanda Scartezini 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 14:49:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:19:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?
Message-ID: <6B74788707E643CFBF36CAF6C2B5C482@GINGERLAPTOP>

At the OC meetings there was a lot of interest in including youth in the IGF
process. Rafik Dammak and Mariela Maciel have been working on this issue
with several other interested groups (Government ofFinland, India and Egypt
Youth). Please post your ideas and interest in a workshop on youth and IG on
this thread.

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/f85db3e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 15:14:56 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:14:56 +1100
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <92271309-2B31-40EE-B123-2F810E9E62AB@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <F7852C7B78274C5CB47123662AF68EDA@IAN>

No reason why IGC shouldn't submit a response. If someone would like to put
up a draft for comments we can aim for a consensus statement

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: 22 March 2009 21:18
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> Cc: Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
> 
> McTim,
> 
> I would strongly second Milton's comment, this is precisely the sort
> of thing IGC folks should be weighing in on, it affects actual
> governance processes much more than does the precise composition of an
> annual conference's panels and program committee.
> 
> A caucus statement would be great, but so would statements by
> individual and organizational members of the caucus.  Actually, I
> would suggest statements, plural.  There are two sets of issues here
> that are politically linked but institutionally separate, so it'd be
> better to address them separately.
> 
> *the NCUC proposal on how the new NCSG should be organized, and an
> alternative proposal on same from the censorship group that is
> designed solely to hard wire the process to give them a seat on the
> GNSO counsel no matter what.  The comment space is at the bottom of
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#sg-petitions
> .  The deadline for submissions is April 15.
> 
> *The censorship constituency petition.   The comment space is at the
> bottom of http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety.  The
> deadline for submissions is April 5.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:16 AM, McTim wrote:
> 
> > Milton,
> >
> > Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
> >
> > For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
> > "cybersafety" constituency proposal.
> >
> > If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
> > current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
> > on IG.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me add my voice to Robin's in encouraging people on this list
> >> to weigh
> >> in on this issue. Civil society participation in global governance
> >> institutions is one of the main "causes" of this caucus, and here
> >> is a
> >> situation in which it really matters to fight for this principle.
> >> If we can
> >> get ICANN to accept our charter proposal, the civil society voice
> >> in ICANN
> >> will be strengthened. If they adopt another proposal, it will be
> >> fragmented
> >> and weakened. Please help us get this done.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Comments are due by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to:
> >> sg-petitions-charters at icann.org.
> >>
> >> Milton Mueller
> >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Internet Governance Project:
> >> http://internetgovernance.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:46 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
> >> Civil
> >> Society Participation in ICANN!
> >>
> >> Call for Action: We need your comments to Support Civil Society
> >> Participation in ICANN!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ICANN is in the midst of a significant reform of its policy-making
> >> body, the
> >> Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO).  Following the
> >> recommendations
> >> provided by the London School of Economics, the ICANN Board is set to
> >> increase the participation of civil society, and approve a charter
> >> for a
> >> new, more influential Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.  ICANN's
> >> Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) has recently submitted a
> >> Charter
> >> Proposal for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Links
> >> to the
> >> Charter Proposal, an Executive Summary and Organization Chart are
> >> at the end
> >> of this message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How can you help support civil society participation in ICANN
> >> policy making?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ICANN is soliciting comments on the NCSG Charter Proposal.
> >> Comments are due
> >> by April 15, 2009 and can be submitted to: sg-petitions-
> charters at icann.org
> >> .
> >> Below are some reasons you can include in your comments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Approve the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by NCUC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear ICANN Board:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please support the NCSG Charter Proposal submitted by the
> >> Noncommercial User
> >> Constituency.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why should the ICANN Board support the proposal?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Most importantly, the proposal integrates all policy deliberation
> >> and voting
> >> of the NCSG into a unified structure. By doing so, the proposed
> >> structure:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> .    Ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on
> >> the GNSO
> >> Council has support across all constituencies.
> >>
> >> .    Supports the formation of consensus positions on policy taken
> >> by the
> >> NCSG, not allowing individual constituencies to control specific GNSO
> >> Council seats and votes.
> >>
> >> .    Enhances representation by lowering barriers to participation
> >> and the
> >> formation of constituencies, allowing a far more diverse set of
> >> interests
> >> and coalitions to easily form.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Show your support for civil society in ICANN policy making, submit
> >> your
> >> comments today!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Robin Gross, Chair
> >>
> >> Noncommercial Users Constituency
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Executive Summary of NCSG Charter Proposal:
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-
> proposal.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> NCSG Petition-Charter:
> >>
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> NCSG Organization Chart:
> >>
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-organization-chart.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> IP JUSTICE
> >>
> >> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> >>
> >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> >>
> >> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> >>
> >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.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
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>    Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Mar 22 15:22:38 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:22:38 +1100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>

I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions -

 

1.	appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a national level
2.	international co-operation of governments
3.	governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures

 

On the former - I know how this is organized at a national level differs
vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed study on this we
could suggest for a panel?

 

Similarly on the latter two - what are the current areas of international
co-operation across various organizations? Has anyone a good study on this?

 

A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a successful
workshop here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: 23 March 2009 05:19
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG

 

Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of government
in IG on this thread.

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu

I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and for
civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in current
discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different
actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc. 

Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de

This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
the JPA. ;-)

 

 

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/dcd09d80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 15:29:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:29:05 +1100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet
Message-ID: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>

I don't think we have discussed this before in this group but it is a
subject I am interested in and I wonder if others are as well.

 

I have in mind speakers such as Bill St Arnaud (CANARIE Canada) who had an
excellent workshop on this last year, perhaps Patrick Falstrom or someone
from IAB, IISD, 

 

I want to make sure the territory of the workshop is positive action
governments, corporations and Internet users can take, not measurement
studies and the like. There is a lot that is known here and a lot that can
be done immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/b9dfb51d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From MMKovary at aol.com  Sun Mar 22 18:42:58 2009
From: MMKovary at aol.com (MMKovary at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:42:58 EDT
Subject: [governance] Workshop on awareness and practical applications
 for people ...
Message-ID: <d5b.414937a8.36f818f2@aol.com>

Dear Ginger,
 
I have been reading comments by members of the World Blind Union (WBU) on  
the International Disability Alliance CRPD Forum list regarding the  
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with  Disabilities.  I am 
learning, but I still do not fully understand all the  issues with respect to 
communication on the internet that are relevant  for blind people.  From what I 
understand, Adobe pdf files are  really difficult for them to use and Adobe 
has not changed its format to make it  more accessible.  I also know that 
pictures on websites without captions  are problematic.  I suggest that you contact 
the leadership of the World  Blind Union to get up-to-date information from 
them regarding practical  suggestions.  The current president of the WBU is 
William Rowland.   According to the website of the WBU, the contact information is 
as  follows:
 
 
Dr. Penny Hartin
Chief Executive  Officer
_Penny.hartin at wbuoffice.org_ (mailto:Penny.hartin at wbuoffice.org) 

Ianina  Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant
_Ianina.rodriguez at wbuoffice.org_ (mailto:Ianina.rodriguez at wbuoffice.org)  
 
Thank you for your interest and for your efforts,
Myra Kovary
 

 
In a message dated 3/22/2009 2:21:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gpaque at gmail.com writes:

 
Please post your interest and ideas in a  workshop on awareness and practical 
applications for people with  disabililties. 
Awareness and practical applications for  people with disabilities – with the 
DC? (Ginger) 
Ginger 
Ms. Virginia (Ginger)  Paque 
DiploFoundation 
Coordinator IGCBP  09 
_www.diplomacy.edu/ig_ (http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig)  
VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu 



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

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

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make meals for Under 
$10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090322/c64fd908/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Mar 23 03:01:09 2009
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:01:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet
In-Reply-To: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>
Message-ID: <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi ian,

APC would be interested. We're starting some work on this with 
members just now - a mix of research and pratical application, 
particularly at the server, ISP, individual and organisational (APC) level..

karenb

At 19:29 22/03/2009, Ian Peter wrote:
>I don't think we have discussed this before in this group but it is 
>a subject I am interested in and I wonder if others are as well.
>
>I have in mind speakers such as Bill St Arnaud (CANARIE Canada) who 
>had an excellent workshop on this last year, perhaps Patrick 
>Falstrom or someone from IAB, IISD,
>
>I want to make sure the territory of the workshop is positive action 
>governments, corporations and Internet users can take, not 
>measurement studies and the like. There is a lot that is known here 
>and a lot that can be done immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ian Peter
>PO Box 429
>Bangalow NSW 2479
>Australia
>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/0222c5e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon Mar 23 06:42:01 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:42:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN> <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau>

Hi Ian, Karen and all

I'll attend the AL meetings organized by the ITU (May 18th - 22th) and would be very interested in a specifically Development-oriented WS, such as -at last !- proposed by Ian. However, my participation depends on the date of the WS .... but I think (and hope) I'm not alone in this case. 

Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack    


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: karen banks 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ian Peter ; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet


  hi ian,

  APC would be interested. We're starting some work on this with members just now - a mix of research and pratical application, particularly at the server, ISP, individual and organisational (APC) level..

  karenb

  At 19:29 22/03/2009, Ian Peter wrote:

    I don't think we have discussed this before in this group but it is a subject I am interested in and I wonder if others are as well.
     
    I have in mind speakers such as Bill St Arnaud (CANARIE Canada) who had an excellent workshop on this last year, perhaps Patrick Falstrom or someone from IAB, IISD, 
     
    I want to make sure the territory of the workshop is positive action governments, corporations and Internet users can take, not measurement studies and the like. There is a lot that is known here and a lot that can be done immediately.
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Ian Peter
    PO Box 429
    Bangalow NSW 2479
    Australia
    Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
    www.ianpeter.com 
     
     
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"

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

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


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


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090323/38e2d5c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 07:53:30 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:53:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] Sharing - Setting the stage "The People of Pakistan's
 National ICT Charter & Master Strategy Plan"
Message-ID: <701af9f70903230453k713ee9cej90b5fdbbf6ebb2ed@mail.gmail.com>

Sharing Discussions from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor

Setting the stage "The People of Pakistan's National ICT Charter &
Master Strategy Plan"

Human Potential and Innovation is our Future!

As a moderator of the Civil Society led ICT Process under the Pakistan
ICT Policy Monitor, I would like to extend this announcement. This is
a stimulus document.

In continuation of Mr. Salman Ansari's suggestion to pursue the
creation of a People's Charter that will result in an Action Plan for
promotion of an Information and Communication Technology strategy and
culture for both the short-term and long-term, I am opening the floor
for e-discussion on Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor. While initiating this
process, I would also like to confirm Mr. Ammar Jaffri’s “Bawaqar
Pakistan” to be a key driving force within this charter backed by Dr.
Shahida Saleem and Dr. Mushtaq’s (GIKI) inputs. Less not least, the
contributions to the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor will be the
groundbreaking foundation for the evolution of this document.

We are all witness to the majority of people living in poverty and the
second majority, mostly the middle and upper class has been
participating in the ICT industry and related businesses with only a
handful actually owning ICT businesses in the country. Therefore we
have to rethink both as a country and its government that how much ICT
capacity and culture have we really developed? How can a new action
plan help in further increasing both the capacity and culture for ICT
adoption and usage by the rest of the population to evolve a
competitive and growth oriented Knowledge Economy? Secondly, what can
we do with the current state of ICTs in Pakistan? How can we leverage
the current users of ICT services; how can the domestic and foreign
markets respond to the handful of Pakistani ICT businesses offerings
amidst political instability; the brain drain crisis and now, the
national energy crisis that only large revenue generating companies
can tackle. Our legal environment, how encouraging and supportive will
it be in the near future? The People's ICT Charter will take this into
account.

When defining a People's Charter, one must keep in mind that
dependence on the miracle governance strategy is only a path to
failure. This Charter will only be successful if it follows a
bottom-up process backed by a demand-based market drive instead of the
traditionally adopted top-down red tape driven development activity.
This document will act as the foundation for a Social and Economic
Development Strategy and Campaign that incorporates Technology and
Innovation as its core nucleus.

A possible initial process suggestion is as per the following:

1. The document that will result from this process will be titled:
"The People of Pakistan's National ICT Charter & Master Strategy Plan".
The duration for its successful implementation may be set to either 5
years or 7 years.

2. The process will be initiated by evolving a set of goals (should
not be more than 2 or 3). This will set the ground for our ICT Master
Strategy depending on point # 3 below.

3. The Master Strategy will be required to address at least four
critical success factors to achieve the goals thus each of these
success factors will be supported by strategic directions that must be
achieved in order to accelerate the adoption of the ICT culture in
Pakistan's society and economy enabling growth of Pakistan’s ICT
Industry.

4. Process Evolution:
Stepping ahead from the first IT Policy of Pakistan, we must realize
that we are in the process of taking ahead the following key
developments:

4.1. A national ICT infrastructure already in place despite its
lacking to provide E-Commerce and One Window E-Governance. This
infrastructure is based on the Information Technology Industry Sector,
Telecom Sector, Education Sector and Civil Society and the national
“Smart Infrastructure”.

4.2. A national human resource base that can now be defined as the
Creative Class of Pakistan being extensively drained to the global
knowledge based industrial marketplaces.

4.3. A national basic but widespread understanding and culture of
learning and practice of adoption of ICTs in the areas of social and
economic development.

4.4. Examples of national ICT Production and Consumption processes and
surveying the landscape both inside the country and its impact abroad.

4.5. Our nation's role in the transition from a manufacturing based
economy to the adoption of a knowledge based economy process and
opportunities it may offer in the future if a strategic direction is
successfully achieved to a great degree.

4.6. Recognition of Pakistan to have the basic requirements of a
knowledge based infrastructure, (a SWOT analysis that determines key
requirements to be incorporated in the next process charter,
E-Commerce being the most critical factor today).

4.7. More concrete processes to favour Pakistan with its current depth
of intellectual resources to be more viable in the global marketplace.

4.8. Counter efforts to leverage human capital or creative class while
retain our knowledge assets, opportunities to prevent exporting them.


5. Process Direction:
5.1. Evolve an aggressive local to global niche strategy in opposition
to a broad-based generic strategy as was done in the first National IT
Policy. Focus should be lifted from enablement and low-cost advantage
to the next level of innovation through incubation and acceleration.

5.2. The rural population that comprises of over 67% of the national
population should be at the core of all planning activity. Taking the
infrastructure to the next level of enablement should be directed only
for the rural regions.

5.3. Energy Crisis and effects of Political instability should be
addressed in terms of Urban Region Infrastructure Enhancement.

5.4. Evolve the higher education and research process in Pakistan to
the next level. For example, Centers of virtual Learning and
Universities in particular should be encouraged to accept
transformation into innovative business incubation centres as the
primary criteria for their growth and sustenance.

5.5. Evolve a bottom up process titled "grassroots ICT culture
development", a bottom-up process backed by a demand-based market
drive as an alternative to the traditionally adopted top-down red tape
driven development activity.

5.6. Evolve a systematic enhancement process to encapsulate the smart
creative class of the country, translate their ideas and needs into a
practical and achievable strategy while clustering existing smart
infrastructures.

5.7. Evolve a process to connect in-country “Smart Infrastructures”
with “Smart Infrastructures” in the global marketplace while
increasing the national capacity to be a more innovative, creative,
and attractive environment that is conducive to retaining the
experienced and drawing in to Pakistan new ICT knowledge workers in
response to catering to a more globally competitive ICT sector.

Following the above, will be the Visioning and Goal Setting Process.
More detailed contributions are expected from the members of this
community. Please feel free to suggest possibly anything, after all
this your charter.


--

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 23 08:29:01 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:29:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet
In-Reply-To: <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau>
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>
 <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <p0624080fc5ed2c3a40b1@[192.168.1.2]>

I expect the ITU would be interested in such a 
workshop.  They've been busy for about a year on 
ICTs and climate change, see this focus group 
<http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/focusgroups/climate/index.html> 
(the focus group is also a member of the dynamic 
coalition on climate change)

Pretty sure Art Levin (once very involved in 
WSIS) is leading the ITU's efforts.

Adam



>Hi Ian, Karen and all
>
>I'll attend the AL meetings organized by the ITU 
>(May 18th - 22th) and would be very interested 
>in a specifically Development-oriented WS, such 
>as -at last !- proposed by Ian. However, my 
>participation depends on the date of the WS .... 
>but I think (and hope) I'm not alone in this 
>case. 
>
>Best
>Jean-Louis Fullsack    
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: <mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org>karen banks
>To: 
><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>; <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>Ian Peter ; 
><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet
>
>hi ian,
>
>APC would be interested. We're starting some 
>work on this with members just now - a mix of 
>research and pratical application, particularly 
>at the server, ISP, individual and 
>organisational (APC) level..
>
>karenb
>
>At 19:29 22/03/2009, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>>I don’t think we have discussed this before in 
>>this group but it is a subject I am interested 
>>in and I wonder if others are as well.
>>
>>I have in mind speakers such as Bill St Arnaud 
>>(CANARIE Canada) who had an excellent workshop 
>>on this last year, perhaps Patrick Falstrom or 
>>someone from IAB, IISD,
>>
>>I want to make sure the territory of the 
>>workshop is positive action governments, 
>>corporations and Internet users can take, not 
>>measurement studies and the like. There is a 
>>lot that is known here and a lot that can be 
>>done immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Ian Peter
>>PO Box 429
>>Bangalow NSW 2479
>>Australia
>>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>www.ianpeter.com
>>
>>
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From hananeb at diplomacy.edu  Mon Mar 23 08:57:08 2009
From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:57:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Applications:  European Capacity Development
 Programme in Internet Governance  (apps. by 10 April)
In-Reply-To: <p0624080fc5ed2c3a40b1@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN> <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org> <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau> <p0624080fc5ed2c3a40b1@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <F4FC962D147948E285396CF96840552F@HANANEPC>

Call for Applications

EUROPEAN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE

(online)



Organised by DiploFoundation
Supported by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM)
and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)





Are you a government or civil society expert who needs to know more about 
international Internet and Internet Governance policies to be more 
effective? Are you a tech expert who would like to know more about the 
social aspects of the impact of the Internet on today's society? Or are you 
a legal expert who needs to understand a bit more about the technical 
facets, a teacher who would like to put the small pieces of the puzzle 
together to help your students understand the current big picture?...

Join us if you would like to learn about and discuss who governs the 
Internet, IP and DNS issues, the role of Internet Service Providers and 
regulators, jurisdiction and legal mechanisms, intellectual property rights, 
cyber-security, privacy and freedom of speech, e-commerce, cultural 
diversity online, multilingualism and more!



We are currently accepting applications for the European Capacity 
Development Programme in Internet Governance. This Programme is designed to 
improve Internet Governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for European 
policy-makers. The Programme is organised through online training, policy 
research and policy immersion.



THE PROGRAMME - TRAINING & RESEARCH

The programme offers places for professionals from diverse stakeholder 
backgrounds in IG-related fields and is open to 20 individuals from European 
countries. The programme will start on 20 April 2009, and will last for 12 
weeks.

The training is conducted entirely online. Participation takes place through 
an online learning platform enabling a variety of interactive learning and 
communication tools and encouraging sharing of knowledge and experiences. 
Participants will work under the guidance of certified Diplo online tutors 
and with support from trained professionals and experts from the region.

Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include the 
analysis of course materials, interactive group discussions, assignments and 
exams.

The Programme includes policy research on IG issues of relevance of 
particular countries in Europe. The policy research will result in short 
case study-based research papers.

The online training consists of a 12-week long course covering the following 
topics:

1)     Introduction to Internet Governance

(Evolution of Internet Governance, International Context, Basic Terminology, 
Approaches and Patterns, Guiding Principles, Analogies and other Cognitive 
Tools for IG)

2)     Infrastructure and Standardisation Basket

(Telecommunications Infrastructure, Domain Name System, Root Servers, 
Internet Service Providers, Internet Bandwidth Providers, Economic Models of 
Internet Connectivity, Internet Security and Safety)

3)     Legal Basket

(Legal Mechanisms, Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Intellectual Property Rights, 
Cybercrime)

4)     Economic Basket

(E-Commerce, Consumer Protection, Taxation, Digital Signatures, E-Banking 
and E-Money)

5)     Socio-Cultural Basket

(Content Policy, Privacy and Data Protection, Multilingualism and Cultural 
Diversity, Global Public Goods, Education)

6)     Development Basket

(Digital Divide, Universal Access, Developing Telecommunications and 
Internet Infrastructures, Socio-Cultural Aspects, Telecommunication Policy 
and Regulation)

7)     Internet Governance Process

(Process, Actors, Negotiations)


Successful participants will receive a certificate of completion of the 
programme. The most successful participants will be awarded a policy 
fellowship to participate at the EuroDIG meeting in September 2009 in 
Geneva. The selected participants will have the opportunity to present 
findings of their research.



LANGUAGE

The programme materials and platform are fully in English. Applicants are 
asked to consider whether their reading and writing skills in English are 
sufficient to follow university level materials and discussion.



PARTICIPANTS

The training programme seeks applications from:

§         Officials in government ministries and departments dealing with 
IG-related issues;

§         Postgraduate students and researchers interested in IG issues;

§         Civil Society activists in the IG field;

§         Journalists covering IG issues;

§         Educators

§         Individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g., ISPs, software 
developers, Registrars etc).

Applicants from European countries - member states of Council of Europe - 
are eligible to apply. Priority in the selection process will be given to 
participants from countries in transition.





TIMELINE

§         10 April - application deadline

§         13 April - selection results

§         20 April - start of the course

§         17 July - end of the course & submission of research projects



FEE

There is no participation fee. Selected participants will be provided by 
scholarships offered by the Swiss Federal Office for Telecommunication 
(OFCOM) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).





DEADLINE

The deadline for applications is 10 April 2009, by midnight UTC/GMT.



HOW TO APPLY

For further information and to apply, please visit: 
http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/
Do not hesitate to contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu.


Hanane Boujemi 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 10:15:18 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:15:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> 
> Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?

Yes, that would be lovely. I'd be happy to develop a first draft for circulation here, or Robin Gross may be doing the same thing so I will check with her first. And it seems that if you and I can agree on someting like this, the entire caucus ought to be able to as well!

> For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
> "cybersafety" constituency proposal.

I would not oppose this but I am less keen on being negative than on being positive. 

In other words, if the integrated, more democratic NCSG charter proposed by NCUC is adopted, there is nothing wrong with anti-porn, pro-censorship advocates having their own caucus/constituency within that framework. The difference is that they don't get guaranteed Council seats and they don't get to fragment civil society into warring factions competing for votes on a Council and constantly badmouthing each other. Whatever positions they get, they have to earn by gaining broad support among noncommercial stakeholders. Note also that there are already hundreds of expressions of opposition to the so-called "cybersafety" constituency proposal.

> 
> If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
> current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
> on IG.

Absolutely agreed, McTim. Always puzzled by this gap.... 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Mar 23 10:17:02 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:17:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] FYI
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>
 <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau>
 <p0624080fc5ed2c3a40b1@[192.168.1.2]>
 <F4FC962D147948E285396CF96840552F@HANANEPC>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D29@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032300039.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 23 10:22:00 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:22:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To:  <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>	
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@[192.168.1.2]>

>  >
>>  Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
>
>Yes, that would be lovely. I'd be happy to develop a first draft for 
>circulation here,


would very much like to see something like this, and having read the 
proposed NCSG charter would very likely support.



>or Robin Gross may be doing the same thing so I will check with her 
>first. And it seems that if you and I can agree on someting like 
>this, the entire caucus ought to be able to as well!
>
>>  For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
>>  "cybersafety" constituency proposal.
>
>I would not oppose this but I am less keen on being negative than on 
>being positive.
>
>In other words, if the integrated, more democratic NCSG charter 
>proposed by NCUC is adopted, there is nothing wrong with anti-porn, 
>pro-censorship advocates having their own caucus/constituency within 
>that framework. The difference is that they don't get guaranteed 
>Council seats and they don't get to fragment civil society into 
>warring factions competing for votes on a Council and constantly 
>badmouthing each other. Whatever positions they get, they have to 
>earn by gaining broad support among noncommercial stakeholders. Note 
>also that there are already hundreds of expressions of opposition to 
>the so-called "cybersafety" constituency proposal.


Thanks Milton, very good example of why the NCUC's approach makes sense.

Adam




>  >
>>  If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
>>  current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
>>  on IG.
>
>Absolutely agreed, McTim. Always puzzled by this gap....
>
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 10:25:32 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:25:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
In-Reply-To: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.

My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the method of workshop planning and development will be completely different this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if certain worst-case scenarios play out.

We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge pot and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a bunch of people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes conflicting agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response.

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: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation

Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this thread.

Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application (practical) perspectives (Ginger)

Ginger

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
DiploFoundation
Coordinator IGCBP 09

www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/90b38513/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Mon Mar 23 10:30:52 2009
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Call for papers - ISGIG 2009 - Compliance, Governance
 and Risk
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903231024300.25344@osaka.law.miami.edu>

Second International ICST Symposium on Global Information Governance
(ISGIG)
Conflict and Collaboration in Compliance, Governance and Risk
http://www.isgig.org/

The Internet of the Future is the theme of ISGIG 2009, and the goal of
the conference is to improve communication among academics, regulators,
compliance officers, business managers and IT managers by exposing
problems, and uncovering potential problems, in the areas of privacy,
compliance, governance, and risk. This conference is an opportunity to
advance models of effective management and collaboration, and will
feature a mix of research papers, invited speakers and structured
discussions to extend the communities' communication and identify
opportunities for mutually beneficial outcomes.

Topics of Interest
We invite researchers, academicians, practitioners, and others to submit
original papers describing new research, applications, or case studies.
Papers covering technical, legal, societal, or other aspects of these
areas are solicited.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

*	Frameworks and Overarching Issues of Network Governance
*	Privacy - a pervading issue
*	Attribution and identify management; anonymity and ID
*	Physical and policy infrastructure of the Internet, and its role
governance:
*	Designing, building, and managing changes to the Internet
infrastructure;
*	National and regional frameworks for IT governance
*	Compliance with government regulations for multi-national
corporations and networks;
*	Emerging issues, including
*	Cyber-terrorism and cyber-crime;
*	Virtual worlds, and the development of new modes of social and
economic interaction that challenge how we translate physical world
structures into virtual worlds;
*	Green computing;
*	Collaborative tools, and their use in politics and e-government.

*	Security and anticipating and responding to attacks that cross
international boundaries; cyber crime
*	Other emerging areas for conflict and cooperation in the
evolving Internet

Important Dates
Abstracts due (optional but encouraged): March 20, 2009
Full Papers due: April 17, 2009
Author notification with reviewer's comments: May 22, 2009
Final revised papers due in camera-ready format: June 12, 2009
Conference: September 15-17, 2009

How to Submit
Papers should be submitted to www.assyst-online.org by April 17. Papers
of any length are encouraged, but a preferred length is 10 pages (not
including citations) on letter or A4 with one inch margins and 11 point
font.

All submissions will be peer reviewed, and acceptances will be provided
by May 22.

Publication
The Proceedings from ISGIG 2009 will be published in LNICST and appear
in SpringerLink and ICST's digital library, the EU-DL.

Organizing Committee
Jeffrey Hunker, General Chair, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Michael Froomkin, Co-chair, University of Miami, USA
Matt Bishop, Co-chair, University of California Davis, USA
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From asif at kabani.co.uk  Mon Mar 23 10:43:25 2009
From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:43:25 +0500
Subject: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?
In-Reply-To: <6B74788707E643CFBF36CAF6C2B5C482@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <6B74788707E643CFBF36CAF6C2B5C482@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <8017791e0903230743h5f1fbb5ayfdcbf3f1ee38844e@mail.gmail.com>

Ginger,

Just to update on the subject, Ms. Iffat from Pakistan was also working on
the Youth and she also hosted workshop in IGF India, kindly note the update,
further more will be added by Iffat (Rose) as she will this email.


With Best Regards


Sincerely


Asif Kabani

2009/3/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

>  At the OC meetings there was a lot of interest in including youth in the
> IGF process. Rafik Dammak and Mariela Maciel have been working on this issue
> with several other interested groups (Government ofFinland, India and Egypt
> Youth). Please post your ideas and interest in a workshop on youth and IG on
> this thread.
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/9459c6f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 10:45:02 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:15:02 -0430
Subject: [governance] General Workshop Proposal procedure (response to
 Milton)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <202A3175815F472586128755F977DD0C@GINGERLAPTOP>

Hi Milton and all,

 

Definitely an important point here, Milton. However, as I understand it, at
this point we are not putting any real "work" or commitment into the
workshop proposal, but brainstorming basic ideas. Interested groups would
continue/commit with the process after the next step by the Secretariat. For
the moment, it is quite an informal proposition, as I see it, to measure the
amount of interest and to facilitate groupings before much energy is
invested in the workshop design and planning. I think this is better than
developing a full workshop proposal only to be told that workshops will be
combined/not approved. It also allows for suggestions/support for workshops
by people who are not interested in organizing them, but in attending them.
Personally, I see this as an opportunity to ask for someone else to organize
a workshop that I see as necessary to help me and the IG situation.

 

Thanks for bringing this up. We should be clear on this. I see the IGC role
at this point as requesting/supporting certain workshops, not committing to
developing them. Any other ideas on this? gp

 

 

 The template on the IGF page is:

 

1.	Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words)
2.	Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200
words)
3.	Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes
(Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or
under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)?  If so
which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.)
4.	Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the
link to the report.
5.	Would you like to organize the workshop yourself?

1.	If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? 
2.	If not, who do you think should organize it? 

 

 

 

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

  _____  

De: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 23 de Marzo de 2009 09:56 a.m.
Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Asunto: RE: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation

 

 

Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that. 

 

My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are
basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the
method of workshop planning and development will be completely different
this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed
concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of
those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing
workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if
certain worst-case scenarios play out. 

 

We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program
for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have
is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge pot
and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a bunch of
people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes conflicting
agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes
please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response. 

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: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation

Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this thread.

 

Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
(practical) perspectives (Ginger)

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/ebc95e76/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 11:06:32 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:06:32 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903230806j5c5220f8lcfdaf73b6e4fd225@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
>
> Yes, that would be lovely. I'd be happy to develop a first draft for circulation here, or Robin Gross may be doing the same thing so I will check with her first. And it seems that if you and I can agree on someting like this, the entire caucus ought to be able to as well!

Well, the idea of making a statement doesn't mean we agree on what the
statement should say.

Either the docs are badly written, or I am confused, but it seems to
me there are 3 things going on here:

1. NCUC wants to morph into the NCSG...My reading of the doc that many
on this list seem to have shaped is that is quite negative.  For
example, the list of folks you exclude is just as long as the list of
people that are eligible.  It's way too complex for my liking, it's
got a very powerful Chair, a Policy Committee, which reads like a Star
Chamber, complex rules about how to join, who can vote, Constituency
building, etc.  What's wrong with one person one vote?  It's slanted
too heavily towards groups for my liking..let's empower the end user,
and make it easier for them to join and participate.

2.  There is a competing proposal to form the NCSG authored by Cheryl
B. Preston.  Mormon power play..nuff said.

3. There is a proposal to form a CyberSafety Constiuency within NCSG,
also by Cheryl B. Preston.  This is a non-starter for me, as "The
focus of the new constituency is Internet safety issues."   Which is
nothing to do with ICANN, nor should it be.

I can't support any of these 3 proposals frankly, nor should the
caucus, as our charter states: "Our vision is that Internet governance
should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented."

None of the 3 fit that bill IMHO.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Mon Mar 23 11:13:01 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:13:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
In-Reply-To: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0903230813h5f4d424cy7044ce68ad4ca847@mail.gmail.com>

HI Ginger,

One of ISOC PH (Philippines) major project (after rejuvenation) is the
remote participation hubs for the IGF09.  I am chairing the working
group on IGF for ISOC PH.

After the IGP (Internet Governance Pulong - "pulong" is the Tagalog
word which means "meeting") during the APNIC 27 in Manila last
February 2009, we wanted IG issues to be accessible for discussion to
Filipinos. We will try to explain to more Filipinos about what IGF is
all about.  We are working towards the information awareness campaign
(sometime May to August) about IG and IGF prior to setting the remote
hubs  in Manila (as a pilot center as it is the capital) and in
Zamboanga City in the South.  Basically, we wanted discussions to be
very simple for Filipinos to understand - like the IGF Tagalog version
article on the IGF.

We have specific and persisting IG issues at a Philippine perspective
and hence we were able to create working groups.  In a way, all these
initiatives are the contribution of ISOC PH to the IGF.

Are we basically talking about best practices here in this case? We
are interested to participate here.

Regards,
Charity Gamboa

On 3/23/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this thread.
>
>
>
> Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
> (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 11:26:23 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:56:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> 
	<A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian

Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be discussed.
But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the Caucus single out
Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments in IG" ?

This moves the role of Governments center stage with the roles of other
stakeholder groups undiscussed.

It would be more appropriate if the workshop is about the Role of various
stakeholder groups, as a part of which, the role of Governments is debated.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>  I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions –
>
>
>
>    1. appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a national level
>    2. international co-operation of governments
>    3. governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures
>
>
>
> On the former – I know how this is organized at a national level differs
> vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed study on this we
> could suggest for a panel?
>
>
>
> Similarly on the latter two – what are the current areas of international
> co-operation across various organizations? Has anyone a good study on this?
>
>
>
> A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a successful
> workshop here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 March 2009 05:19
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
>
>
>
> Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of
> government in IG on this thread.
>
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>
> I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and for
> civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in current
> discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of different
> actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.
>
> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>
> This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
> equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
> the JPA. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/c299ea08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 11:26:21 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:26:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903230806j5c5220f8lcfdaf73b6e4fd225@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903230806j5c5220f8lcfdaf73b6e4fd225@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


I knew it was too good to be true...

> 1. NCUC wants to morph into the NCSG...
> My reading of the doc that many
> on this list seem to have shaped is that is quite negative.  For
> example, the list of folks you exclude is just as long as the list of
> people that are eligible.  

You're coming at this perhaps without much context. You've never been involved in the GNSO so you are not aware of the parameters that shaped the document. Also we have ICANN staff template and their comments to deal with. 

Regarding eligibility requirements, those are constrained by the ICANN GNSO (see the ICANN bylaws), which divides the world up into mutually exclusive "stakeholder groups." There is really no choice about that. If you're commercial you go into the Commercial Stakeholder Group; if you're a registrar or registry you go into theirs. Likewise, we have been told by large organizations, and by ICANN staff, that individuals cannot have the same voting power as organizations with hundreds or thousands of members. 

Indeed, it was considered extremely radical and controversial for NCUC to even afford individuals membership at all. Many ICANN At LArge RALOs still don't allow individual membership. Registrar and registry constituencies don't allow individual membership. NCUC was the first, and we took all kinds of heat from the business constituencies and staff for it. But we seem to be winning on that score. Granted, it doesn't follow IETF-style norms and procedures, but this isn't IETF. 

> It's way too complex for my liking,

mine too, but unavoidable. And much less complex than the alternative. 

> it's got a very powerful Chair

Not really. Just administrative stuff. The NCSG chair is no more powerful than the IGC coordinators.

> a Policy Committee, which reads like a Star
> Chamber

Huh? ICANN staff and the CP80 crowd say the Policy Committee is too weak. They want to carve up the world into little factions that control council seats. If they have their way, a council of constituencies will negotiate over the heads of the members to decide what policy statements are made and who sits on the GNSO Council. Do you want that? 0

> complex rules about how to join, who can vote, Constituency
> building, etc.  What's wrong with one person one vote?  It's slanted
> too heavily towards groups for my liking..let's empower the end user,
> and make it easier for them to join and participate.

Would be nice, but I'd advise you to read the ICANN bylaws about the GNSO, and get a better idea of what framework this fits into.

> 2.  There is a competing proposal to form the NCSG authored by Cheryl
> B. Preston.  Mormon power play..nuff said.

OK, at least we agree on that. 

> 3. There is a proposal to form a CyberSafety Constiuency within NCSG,
> also by Cheryl B. Preston.  This is a non-starter for me, as "The
> focus of the new constituency is Internet safety issues."   Which is
> nothing to do with ICANN, nor should it be.
 
> I can't support any of these 3 proposals frankly

Then you render yourself irrelevant in the current dialogue. And de facto, you support Cybersafety/CP80, because either our proposal or theirs is going to be selected by the Board. There is no question that the NCUC proposal is better for civil society. If real civil society doesn't stand up for it, it concedes the territory to the likes of CP80. And as you are always saying, it is far more important politically to be present in a real IG entity like ICANN than to talk among ourselves in the IGF space. 

I (or Robin) will develop a sign-on draft. Don't sign it or do, it's up to you. 

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 23 11:34:33 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:34:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903230806j5c5220f8lcfdaf73b6e4fd225@mail.gmail.com>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE6A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Milton, McTim,

Thanks to both of you for the clarifying dialogue on what is at stake here for ICANN, and for civil society participation therein.

I look forward to reviewing the Robin/Milton draft; recall McTim you can also send your personal views directly to ICANN following standard procedures; which we are all being encouraged to do as well as, possibly, sigining on to the Robin/Milton draft.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:26 AM
To: 'McTim'
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil

I knew it was too good to be true...

> 1. NCUC wants to morph into the NCSG...
> My reading of the doc that many
> on this list seem to have shaped is that is quite negative.  For
> example, the list of folks you exclude is just as long as the list of
> people that are eligible.

You're coming at this perhaps without much context. You've never been involved in the GNSO so you are not aware of the parameters that shaped the document. Also we have ICANN staff template and their comments to deal with.

Regarding eligibility requirements, those are constrained by the ICANN GNSO (see the ICANN bylaws), which divides the world up into mutually exclusive "stakeholder groups." There is really no choice about that. If you're commercial you go into the Commercial Stakeholder Group; if you're a registrar or registry you go into theirs. Likewise, we have been told by large organizations, and by ICANN staff, that individuals cannot have the same voting power as organizations with hundreds or thousands of members.

Indeed, it was considered extremely radical and controversial for NCUC to even afford individuals membership at all. Many ICANN At LArge RALOs still don't allow individual membership. Registrar and registry constituencies don't allow individual membership. NCUC was the first, and we took all kinds of heat from the business constituencies and staff for it. But we seem to be winning on that score. Granted, it doesn't follow IETF-style norms and procedures, but this isn't IETF.

> It's way too complex for my liking,

mine too, but unavoidable. And much less complex than the alternative.

> it's got a very powerful Chair

Not really. Just administrative stuff. The NCSG chair is no more powerful than the IGC coordinators.

> a Policy Committee, which reads like a Star
> Chamber

Huh? ICANN staff and the CP80 crowd say the Policy Committee is too weak. They want to carve up the world into little factions that control council seats. If they have their way, a council of constituencies will negotiate over the heads of the members to decide what policy statements are made and who sits on the GNSO Council. Do you want that? 0

> complex rules about how to join, who can vote, Constituency
> building, etc.  What's wrong with one person one vote?  It's slanted
> too heavily towards groups for my liking..let's empower the end user,
> and make it easier for them to join and participate.

Would be nice, but I'd advise you to read the ICANN bylaws about the GNSO, and get a better idea of what framework this fits into.

> 2.  There is a competing proposal to form the NCSG authored by Cheryl
> B. Preston.  Mormon power play..nuff said.

OK, at least we agree on that.

> 3. There is a proposal to form a CyberSafety Constiuency within NCSG,
> also by Cheryl B. Preston.  This is a non-starter for me, as "The
> focus of the new constituency is Internet safety issues."   Which is
> nothing to do with ICANN, nor should it be.

> I can't support any of these 3 proposals frankly

Then you render yourself irrelevant in the current dialogue. And de facto, you support Cybersafety/CP80, because either our proposal or theirs is going to be selected by the Board. There is no question that the NCUC proposal is better for civil society. If real civil society doesn't stand up for it, it concedes the territory to the likes of CP80. And as you are always saying, it is far more important politically to be present in a real IG entity like ICANN than to talk among ourselves in the IGF space.

I (or Robin) will develop a sign-on draft. Don't sign it or do, it's up to you.

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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Mar 23 12:05:53 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:05:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] FYI
References: <E1FF85F1F67B434BBB4CED2E071D3C06@IAN>
 <20090323070138.144A02FD775@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <C23A6A239A4247668E3496202D77E22A@PCbureau>
 <p0624080fc5ed2c3a40b1@[192.168.1.2]>
 <F4FC962D147948E285396CF96840552F@HANANEPC>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D29@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D2F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
OECD ICCP Committee expands participation of non-governmental stakeholders in its work
http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_34223_42398924_1_1_1_1,00.html
 
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 ca at rits.org.br  Mon Mar 23 12:03:28 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:03:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support Civil
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903230806j5c5220f8lcfdaf73b6e4fd225@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <49C7B2D0.5090402@rits.org.br>

If I can grasp McTim's thinking aloud, he is telling us all of this
regarding the formation of this new stakeholder group is irrelevant, or
it makes no difference if one or other proposal gets accepted, which is
the same thing. Keep thinking McT, I hope you will change your view.

As to the alleged shortcomings, MM has given proper clarification.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I knew it was too good to be true...
> 
>> 1. NCUC wants to morph into the NCSG...
>> My reading of the doc that many
>> on this list seem to have shaped is that is quite negative.  For
>> example, the list of folks you exclude is just as long as the list of
>> people that are eligible.  
> 
> You're coming at this perhaps without much context. You've never been involved in the GNSO so you are not aware of the parameters that shaped the document. Also we have ICANN staff template and their comments to deal with. 
> 
> Regarding eligibility requirements, those are constrained by the ICANN GNSO (see the ICANN bylaws), which divides the world up into mutually exclusive "stakeholder groups." There is really no choice about that. If you're commercial you go into the Commercial Stakeholder Group; if you're a registrar or registry you go into theirs. Likewise, we have been told by large organizations, and by ICANN staff, that individuals cannot have the same voting power as organizations with hundreds or thousands of members. 
> 
> Indeed, it was considered extremely radical and controversial for NCUC to even afford individuals membership at all. Many ICANN At LArge RALOs still don't allow individual membership. Registrar and registry constituencies don't allow individual membership. NCUC was the first, and we took all kinds of heat from the business constituencies and staff for it. But we seem to be winning on that score. Granted, it doesn't follow IETF-style norms and procedures, but this isn't IETF. 
> 
>> It's way too complex for my liking,
> 
> mine too, but unavoidable. And much less complex than the alternative. 
> 
>> it's got a very powerful Chair
> 
> Not really. Just administrative stuff. The NCSG chair is no more powerful than the IGC coordinators.
> 
>> a Policy Committee, which reads like a Star
>> Chamber
> 
> Huh? ICANN staff and the CP80 crowd say the Policy Committee is too weak. They want to carve up the world into little factions that control council seats. If they have their way, a council of constituencies will negotiate over the heads of the members to decide what policy statements are made and who sits on the GNSO Council. Do you want that? 0
> 
>> complex rules about how to join, who can vote, Constituency
>> building, etc.  What's wrong with one person one vote?  It's slanted
>> too heavily towards groups for my liking..let's empower the end user,
>> and make it easier for them to join and participate.
> 
> Would be nice, but I'd advise you to read the ICANN bylaws about the GNSO, and get a better idea of what framework this fits into.
> 
>> 2.  There is a competing proposal to form the NCSG authored by Cheryl
>> B. Preston.  Mormon power play..nuff said.
> 
> OK, at least we agree on that. 
> 
>> 3. There is a proposal to form a CyberSafety Constiuency within NCSG,
>> also by Cheryl B. Preston.  This is a non-starter for me, as "The
>> focus of the new constituency is Internet safety issues."   Which is
>> nothing to do with ICANN, nor should it be.
>  
>> I can't support any of these 3 proposals frankly
> 
> Then you render yourself irrelevant in the current dialogue. And de facto, you support Cybersafety/CP80, because either our proposal or theirs is going to be selected by the Board. There is no question that the NCUC proposal is better for civil society. If real civil society doesn't stand up for it, it concedes the territory to the likes of CP80. And as you are always saying, it is far more important politically to be present in a real IG entity like ICANN than to talk among ourselves in the IGF space. 
> 
> I (or Robin) will develop a sign-on draft. Don't sign it or do, it's up to you. 
> 
> --MM____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
www.ritsnet.org.br
------------------------------------------------


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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 17:56:32 2009
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:56:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] General Workshop Proposal procedure (response to
In-Reply-To: <202A3175815F472586128755F977DD0C@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <202A3175815F472586128755F977DD0C@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <f7e605ab0903231456h35960282i16cbc26728a9cd67@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Milton and all,

I understand your concern and I have to confess that it also makes me feel
unsecure to leave such a wide margin of decision on the hands of the MAG.



On the other hand, there was a negative aspect on the model that was in
place until last year, regarding the organization of the workshops, in my
opinion. If the free arrangements between workshop proposers allowed people
with the same frame of mind to get together, it also lacked transparency and
openness.

It allowed pals to define a workshop proposal and make it public when
everything was agreed, no other organizer could be included (with real
space) and no important adjustment to the main theme could be made.



I believe it´s good to start this debate early and carry it publicly. But I
also agree that we should follow this process closely, and don´t leave it
all to MAG. This should be seriously debated and I am glad that you
mentioned it.

Best regards,

Marília

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi Milton and all,
>
>
>
> Definitely an important point here, Milton. However, as I understand it, at
> this point we are not putting any real “work” or commitment into the
> workshop proposal, but brainstorming basic ideas. Interested groups would
> continue/commit with the process after the next step by the Secretariat. For
> the moment, it is quite an informal proposition, as I see it, to measure the
> amount of interest and to facilitate groupings before much energy is
> invested in the workshop design and planning. I think this is better than
> developing a full workshop proposal only to be told that workshops will be
> combined/not approved. *It also allows for suggestions/support for
> workshops by people who are not interested in organizing them, but in
> attending them*.  Personally, I see this as an opportunity to ask for
> someone else to organize a workshop that I see as necessary to help me and
> the IG situation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. We should be clear on this. I see the IGC role
> at this point as requesting/supporting certain workshops, not committing to
> developing them. Any other ideas on this? gp
>
>
>
>
>
>  The template on the IGF page is:
>
>
>
>    1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words)
>    2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200
>    words)
>    3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes
>    (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or
>    under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)?  If so
>    which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.)
>    4. Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the
>    link to the report.
>    5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself?
>       1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ?
>       2. If not, who do you think should organize it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Enviado el:* Lunes, 23 de Marzo de 2009 09:56 a.m.
> *Para:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Asunto:* RE: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
> discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.
>
>
>
> My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are
> basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the
> method of workshop planning and development will be completely different
> this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed
> concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of
> those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing
> workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if
> certain worst-case scenarios play out.
>
>
>
> We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program
> for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have
> is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge pot
> and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a bunch of
> people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes conflicting
> agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes
> please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>
> Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this
> thread.
>
>
>
> Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
> (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/c4d47a6f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From MWong at piercelaw.edu  Mon Mar 23 19:35:23 2009
From: MWong at piercelaw.edu (Mary Wong)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:35:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>	
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>

I'd like to chip in briefly here with my two cents' worth. As a relative newcomer to the ICANN juggernaut and its processes, I corroborate others' comments on the complexity and limitations that the new NCSG will be working within.
 
I hope everyone who cares about bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance AND broad-based user participation will support the proposal for the new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). Milton has already given some reasons why this is an important turning point for civil society involvement; let me just add two clarifying points:
 
1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
 
- Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial organizations; voting is done directly by each member.
- Members may (but are not compelled) to form Constituencies; members may, regardless of Constituency, join working groups and participate in ICANN activities.
- Constituencies are ultimately scrutinized and approved by the ICANN Board and not by the NCSG Chair. As such, the NCSG Chair (and the NCSG Policy Committee) cannot influence the formation of Constituencies. 
- Constituency formation is thus separated from the NCSG "umbrella" structure, thereby encouraging new members to join without having to specify a Constituency of particular interest (or if none currently exists, to take on the formidable task of applying to form one.)

2. The NCSG proposal recognizes the breadth of issues and divergence of views amongst a broad base of members, and facilitates minority representation.
 
- Members are free to form or join up to 3 Constituencies; each Constituency is guaranteed a place on the NCSG Policy Committee (alongside the Chair and the elected Councillors.)
- If a particular issue gains a certain level of support across Constituencies or a percentage of the membership, the NCSG Councillors are obliged to vote in favor of a Working Group being formed at Council level to address that issue.
 
(NOTE: as Milton pointed out, the new ICANN structure that the Board has set up will be based on 4 Stakeholder Groups (SGs), of which the NCSG is one, the others being Registrars, Registries and Commercials. Each SG elects a certain number of Councillors. NOTE ALSO that - unlike current ICANN practice - policy work will NOT be done at Council level, but, rather, within Working Groups set up specifically for that purpose.)
 
3. The NCSG proposal will not entrench an existing group of members/office-holders.
 
- In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member (individual or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new NCSG, and no existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new structure.
 
DISCLOSURE: I am a new NCUC Councillor and helped with the finalization of the NCSG proposal. It is my belief that the NCSG proposal - of all the proposed alternatives and within the limitations of the byzantine ICANN structure and its labyrinthian processes - best addresses the issues of greater individual and more user involvement in ICANN, and ensures minority representation while minimizing fruitless and wasteful in-fighting amongst civil society and other non-commercial interests.
 
Thanks for your attention, and, hopefully, supportive action,
Mary
 
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
 
>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 3/23/2009 10:22 AM >>>
>  >
>>  Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
>
>Yes, that would be lovely. I'd be happy to develop a first draft for 
>circulation here,


would very much like to see something like this, and having read the 
proposed NCSG charter would very likely support.



>or Robin Gross may be doing the same thing so I will check with her 
>first. And it seems that if you and I can agree on someting like 
>this, the entire caucus ought to be able to as well!
>
>>  For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
>>  "cybersafety" constituency proposal.
>
>I would not oppose this but I am less keen on being negative than on 
>being positive.
>
>In other words, if the integrated, more democratic NCSG charter 
>proposed by NCUC is adopted, there is nothing wrong with anti-porn, 
>pro-censorship advocates having their own caucus/constituency within 
>that framework. The difference is that they don't get guaranteed 
>Council seats and they don't get to fragment civil society into 
>warring factions competing for votes on a Council and constantly 
>badmouthing each other. Whatever positions they get, they have to 
>earn by gaining broad support among noncommercial stakeholders. Note 
>also that there are already hundreds of expressions of opposition to 
>the so-called "cybersafety" constituency proposal.


Thanks Milton, very good example of why the NCUC's approach makes sense.

Adam




>  >
>>  If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
>>  current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
>>  on IG.
>
>Absolutely agreed, McTim. Always puzzled by this gap....
>
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org 
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090323/d7011232/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 01:36:14 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:36:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2>
	 <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>

Hullo Mary,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:

> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>
> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial organizations;

yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
excluded.  The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.

> voting is done directly by each member.
> - Members may (but are not compelled) to form Constituencies; members may,
> regardless of Constituency, join working groups and participate in ICANN
> activities.

<snip>

> 3. The NCSG proposal will not entrench an existing group of
> members/office-holders.
>
> - In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User Constituency
> (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member (individual
> or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new NCSG, and no
> existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new structure.

Except for:

" 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the June 2009 ICANN
meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
terms of the 3
NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until June 2010."


-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar 24 03:40:39 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:10:39 +0530
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop
 proposals]]
Message-ID: <49C88E77.4050402@itforchange.net>


Milton,

Your doubts about the new process are all very important and well 
articulated in your email below.

My understanding, though MAG did not go into the details of the issue, 
is that the MAG is trying to make

(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than 
less, an objective, I know, you share. To some extent, the attempt may 
also be to get workshops more focussed towards issues that are 
relatively more central of IGF's current agenda - which we all know is 
somewhat politically negotiated within and outside the MAG. I know that 
you will agree both to a more politically determined and a more focussed 
set of activities at and through the IGF than otherwise. However 
workshops are also a means of introducing new agenda into the IGF and 
this aspect of the 'workshop' space remains important even in the new 
scheme.

(2) get different viewpoints and positions together at the same place 
rather than different rooms, which again I know you do, in general, 
support.

However I suspect that you may see two problems here.

(1) You may challenge the political authority and legitimacy of the MAG 
to take this increased role. We will have to have a separate discussion 
on this. However I do know that since you were always for an even 
smaller MAG with clearer political accountabilities than a larger, 
diffused and a rather powerless one, I suspect we may have some common 
ground to agree here as well.

(2) You are afraid that the open space of 'workshops' where any agenda 
could be articulated may get crowded out, with MAG being able to push 
its favored subjects even in the workshop space. In this context, my 
feeling is that the MAG may not get too assertive in choosing workshops 
and in advising mergers. I would think that all workshops with solid 
substantive/ organizational/ participation basis will be accepted. There 
may be some 'advice' from the MAG to consider merger,  but I would think 
that for any 'good organizer' it will relatively safe to turn it down. 
On the other hand, the MAG filter can rather be used to discourage and 
remove proposals, that have what you recognise as the key problem in the 
workshops space - in your  words, workshops 'that were thrown together 
at the last minute with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced 
viewpoints or stakeholder mixes".

Your fear that the MAG process may be used to make 'Workshops become 
bland and meaningless' is very important to keep in mind.  You mention 
two, related, aspects to this problem. In both cases I support your 
position strongly and we should do out best through IGC interventions 
and presence in MAG to make sure that MAG's processes in selecting and 
advising mergers is informed of these positions.

(1) The problem that many in the IGF arena have a (very) active position 
against certain discussions (and not just certain positions) is endemic, 
and needs to be constantly engaged with, and its impact minimized.

(2) A related problem, as shown by your IPv6 example, is that, if one is 
not able to stop certain important global policy discussion through 
obstructing at the agenda
setting level, it is then done by mixing 'capacity building' and 
implementation issues when core policy issues may be sought to be 
discussed. As you argue, just because the general name/space of an issue 
- IPv6, connectivity, CIRs etc -  may be same or shared,  it doesn't  
mean that  we can keep bringing very different  'aspects' of the issue 
together in the same discussion, which just obstructs meaningful 
discussions.

If the IGF can somehow find a way across the above two problems, we 
would then have made a huge move forward and be ready to discuss some 
real global Internet policy issues which is the IGF's primary mandate to 
discuss. At present, I can only say that this is a political struggle 
and we keep trying our best.

I have considered these issues you raise about the new format, and as 
mentioned in my MAG meeting report in my email of 3rd March I support it 
'on the balance'. However we should strongly present our fears and 
doubts and need for corresponding care in the MAG processes at the next 
open consultations and the MAG meeting. It is only after the May meeting 
the process of advising mergers etc will start.

So, I hope you would develop proposals for the workshops IGP wants to 
hold in the next IGF and submit them before the 15th of April.

Parminder

(The above is a mix of my impressions of MAG's intention and my personal 
views. As I said MAG did not discuss the new format - especially its 
pros and cons - in any great detail, and therefore I may be wrong even 
while judging MAG's intention.)



Thanks for this very useful clarification, Bertrand.
 
I want to take issue with some of the analysis behind it, but in general 
I agree with the intent of the new approach and appreciate your giving 
us clear advance notice of it.
 
The problem with past workshops was NOT that proposers had the ability 
to propose and execute "fully developed" proposals. Many of the best and 
most productive workshops followed that partern. The problem was that 
the Secretariat did not feel as if it was in a position to discriminate 
between fully-developed proposals that were executed well, and those 
that were thrown together at the last minute with no coherent theme 
and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder mixes. 
 
The saving grace of this "anything goes" policy was that it allowed a 
few applicants to put together high-quality Workshops that were 
unfiltered and had a clear vision of what they were trying to do. It 
also meant that for every one of those, there were one or two sloppy and 
unbalanced ones. But people could vote with their feet, and they did. 
Indeed, all of the IGP Workshops for the last three years have been 
packed, because they had sharply defined themes, balanced collections of 
panelists and dealt with real, substantive issues not fluff and 
self-promotion.
 
The clear and present danger from what you describe as the new approach 
is that all proposals have to be run through the political wringer of 
the MAG. This is a good way to make Workshops become bland and 
meaningless, or, (worse) ensnare their proposers in months of political 
negotiations with clueless or hostile partners. I have first-hand 
knowledge of how this happened last time with the IPv6 main session 
panel. Making the content of workshops into a collective decision of the 
entire IGF is a sure-fire way to ensure that the Workshops become 
as boring and useless as most of the main sessions have been. Your new 
process seems to put the MAG at the center of grouping proposals and 
selecting themes, and the whole point of the Workshops was that it 
offered a free space outside of that. 
 
I hope that when you start grouping "theme" proposers together, you do 
so with open eyes.
 
That means: recognize, please, that for every pressing and important 
topic in Internet governance, there is someone or some group who would 
prefer that we not talk about it at all.
 
That means: Do not throw together people who want to undermine or 
prevent discussion of a topic with the people who really want to discuss 
the issue, and expect them to work out a good program.
 
That means: do not throw together people who want to talk about related, 
but quite different things. (e.g., in the IPv6 panel there were people 
who wanted simply to promote migration to IPv6, and there were people 
who wanted to talk about the transitional problems caused by the 
shortage of IPv4 addresses. Those two ideas were fundamentally 
incompatible as topics, and we wasted lots of time trying to reconcile 
them.)
 
In other words, up to now the Workshops, because they are relatively 
free, have been the saving grace of the IGF. I hope that doesn't get 
spoiled with the new approach. It could have disastrous consequences for 
attendance at the next meeting.

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:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
    *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:10 PM
    *To:* WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
    *Subject:* [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals

    Dear all,

    A word of explanation on the call for workshops proposals issued by
    the IGF secretariat, as it is a slightly different procedure that in
    the previous years.

    During the February consultations and the MAG meeting, it appeared
    clearly that the traditional method of asking people to propose
    fully developed workshop proposals (complete with co-sponsors and
    potential panelists) had two unexpected but damaging consequences :
    - several proposals on similar subjects were prepared separately
    with great efforts and great commitment from proponents,
    - it became therefore particularly difficult to encourage them to
    merge afterwards, as they became naturally strongly committed to
    their specific approach

    The general result was in the first three years the abundance of
    workshops that everybody recognizes as difficult to handle for the
    participants.

    The process proposed this year is therefore a bit different, taking
    advantage of the fact that we are starting a little bit earlier. The
    objective is to encourage people to first submit themes rather than
    full-fledged proposals, with arguments and reasons why the theme
    should be addressed. This represents for all IGF participants an
    opportunity to have an increased influence on the Agenda of the
    meeting itself (as issues can be proposed by people who do not have
    the capacity to organize a workshop themselves). It is also a way to
    facilitate grouping different proposals together and encourage
    proponents to join forces to co-organize one session instead of
    several in parallel.

    In Hyderabad, the community underscored that different issues have
    different levels of "maturity" or "ripeness", and the MAG has
    basically identified three categories that could correspond to
    different workshop formats (what is below is my own formulation of
    the three categories) :
    - issues where people do not agree yet on the nature of the problem
    and where a more complete picture needs to be drawn before trying to
    identify solutions : such issues would benefit from expert panels,
    laying out the different dimensions,
    - issues where people are clearly aware of the different aspects at
    stake but disagree on the appropriate approach or objectives; these
    would benefit from very interactive workshops with a lot of
    participation from the room
    - issues where a basic agreement has emerged on what needs to be
    done and where the challenge is to synergize concerted action among
    the different concerned stakeholders; this category could benefit
    from "roundtable formats" gathering the key actors involved in order
    to help them distribute responsibilities and coordinate action.

    As the discussion in the IGC progresses, I felt it was important to
    describe this new context. Several interesting issues have been
    raised on the list so far and the IGC can play a very important role
    in discussing a relatively extensive list of themes, and then seeing
    how they could be grouped in clusters. This will help the work of
    the Secretariat and the MAG immensely. .

    I hope these background elements will be useful.

    Best

    Bertrand

    -- 
    ____________________
    Bertrand de La Chapelle
    Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
    the Information Society
    Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
    Foreign and European Affairs
    Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

    "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
    Saint Exupéry
    ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")


-- 
____________________________________________
Roshni Nuggehalli

IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (00-91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net
www.IS-Watch.net
http://India.IS-Watch.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/0f7bada4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/0f7bada4/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar 24 03:45:00 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:15:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread
In-Reply-To: <CEB1B8B6F888425A852E5C06386BB5C2@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <CEB1B8B6F888425A852E5C06386BB5C2@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net>

Hi All

I support the proposal to have a NN workshop.

I find Milton's question - what is the GLOBAL angle on it - interesting.

In fact so interesting, that I think we should have a workshop on this 
issue alone. 'NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any case it is 
always better to have more focussed issues for workshops.

I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that such-and-such 
NN regulation is necessary to be observed by the concerned actors, would 
that not set the default global regime for NN. Do developing countries - 
even a relatively larger and more powerful one  like India - have any 
serious options but to accept the default regime.

What NN issues extend across the global Internet, or are likely to so 
extend? What accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt by a globally 
democratic system - and if there isnt one at present, the problems that 
such a situation presents.

Discussing NN in terms of global Internet policy will be in accordance 
of the central mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue forum for global 
Internet policy issues. parminder


Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Please post your ideas for a NN Workshop on this thread. I have pasted 
> below the previous discussion I found. Thanks.
>
>  
>
> Ginger suggested:
>
> Mixed panel on NN: experts from CS, business and government presenting 
> different sides­we had a great discussion on the NN panel last year, 
> but were missing the academic viewpoint.
>
>
>  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>
> As for Net Neutrality, what is the GLOBAL angle on it? What would a 
> discussion contribute that hasn't already been said. The only new 
> development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection, which Ralf is 
> working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too
>
>  
>
> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>
> I guess it would be interesting to invite some folks from IETF and related
>  transnational tech forums. The NN debates have so far mostly focused on
> regulations by government agencies or the EU, but the IETF for example has
> also done some work on "what constitutes fairness in bandwidth
> management", e.g. here:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-00>
> They are also working on less infringing ways of dealing with the massive
> volume of P2P traffic:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01>
>
> Oh, and then there are a number of techies who say that the end-to-end
> principle is dead already, because of NAT and related issues. One of our
> colleagues in Delft has done a bit of work on this, and the CCC nerds in
> Bremen just told me the same over the weekend.
>
> Bottom line: As you may remember, we had a hard time ourselves here
> recently defining what "NN" would mean exactly. So I guess some technical
> capacity building could not hurt at all here. ;-)
>
> >/ The only new development there is the rise of Deep Packet Inspection,/
>
> Not only. It's also the spread of the "filtering" debates around the
> world, even in democratic countries. We're just having it in Germany now. :-(
>
> >/ which Ralf is working on and perhaps a WS on that would be useful, too/
>
> I am all for a workshop on NN and/or on DPI. This might also be a nice
> chance for collaboration with the IGF Dynamic Coalitions on Internet
> Rights and Principles, on Privacy, and on Freedom of Expression.
>
>  
>
>
> Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>__
>
> Exactly, and probably not only _technical_ capacity building. One of 
> the - many - aspects I'd fbe interested to discuss is the reasons why 
> some old issues are now being reframed into NN issues, by whom/which 
> actors, and what are the implications of this reframing.
> e.g. content filtering is more an more addressed as a NN issue, rather 
> than a content censorship (i.e. a right violation) issue.
>
> In any case, an IGC workshop is worth proposing on this theme.
> Best,
> Meryem
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _ _
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Ginger
>
>  
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>  
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/4b8a1a27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 04:50:40 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:20:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> 	<A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>

 >Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be 
discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the 
Caucus single out >Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments 
in IG" ?

I agree, the workshop should be on a title something like

"Global IG - the role of the governments, civil society and the private 
sector'.

Just interrogating the role of governments is either reducing IG to CIR 
management, or, if we are speaking of all aspects of IG,  it is a bit 
presumptuous, in the sense that governments obviously see themselves in 
'the' central role. We may want to challenge that, especially at the 
global level, but best to do with a workshop with the above kind of a 
title, that looking at the 'role of government in IG' which seem, at 
least to me, to suggest that it was something of a new and developing 
concept.

Parminder

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ian
>
> Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be 
> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the 
> Caucus single out Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments 
> in IG" ?
>
> This moves the role of Governments center stage with the roles of 
> other stakeholder groups undiscussed.
>
> It would be more appropriate if the workshop is about the Role of 
> various stakeholder groups, as a part of which, the role of 
> Governments is debated.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>     I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions –
>
>      
>
>        1. appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a
>           national level
>        2. international co-operation of governments
>        3. governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures
>
>      
>
>     On the former – I know how this is organized at a national level
>     differs vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed
>     study on this we could suggest for a panel?
>
>      
>
>     Similarly on the latter two – what are the current areas of
>     international co-operation across various organizations? Has
>     anyone a good study on this?
>
>      
>
>     A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a
>     successful workshop here.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Ian Peter
>
>     PO Box 429
>
>     Bangalow NSW 2479
>
>     Australia
>
>     Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
>     www.ianpeter.com <http://www.ianpeter.com>
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>     *Sent:* 23 March 2009 05:19
>     *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
>
>      
>
>     Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of
>     government in IG on this thread.
>
>     Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>
>
>     I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the
>     IGF, and for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of
>     this theme in current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of
>     ICANN-GAC, discussions of different actions of national
>     governments, forum shopping, etc.
>
>     Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>     <mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>
>     This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
>     equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
>     the JPA. ;-)
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Ginger
>
>      
>
>     Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
>     DiploFoundation
>
>     Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>      
>
>     www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>
>     VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
>
>      
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20090324/7d062910/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 04:51:55 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:51:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu> <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi McTim,

I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:

> Hullo Mary,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>  
> wrote:
>
>> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>
>> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial  
>> organizations;
>
> yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
> excluded.

The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that  
patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade  
associations, investors) and will be represented in other stakeholder  
groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme of putting  
actors into one stakeholder group and not another is ICANN's, not  
ours, and it maps with standard practices in public policymaking  
bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many standards  
bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of actors per se,  
sorry but there's a big world out there that for sound reasons are not  
based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of it.  The proposal just  
says how the board's model is to be locally implemented by specifying  
that the noncommercial users SG is for noncommercial users just as the  
commercial users SG is for commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should  
be recalled that we do include the possibility of flexibility  
regarding orgs and individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not  
ineligible due to their own or their organization’s membership in  
another GNSO SG or the ccNSO.

If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture  
stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced  
with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply  
different interests will magically emerge through cool technical  
reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.   
But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework alongside  
others would be rather unfair.

> The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.

No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone  
has to review and decide on applications, and this is an appropriately  
accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided by explicit  
charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke filled room,  
and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in which someone  
with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial rather than one of  
the business SGs would be rejected.  And constituency approval is left  
to the board, informed by a public comment period.

>>
>> - In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User  
>> Constituency
>> (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member  
>> (individual
>> or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new  
>> NCSG, and no
>> existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new  
>> structure.
>
> Except for:
>
> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the  
> June 2009 ICANN
> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> terms of the 3
> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until  
> June 2010."

Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the  
transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in  
engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a  
time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents  
capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just be  
beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six plug  
and play candidates on the fly.

These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject  
the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and  
transparent consultation process and continuously revised in  
interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is  
far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the  
table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and  
Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these  
too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?

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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 05:18:17 2009
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:18:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
	 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Interesting exchange. And a good progressive refinement on the topic. This
is clearly something of interest for all stakeholders.

Such a workshop clearly would build upon the now famous IG definition of
art. 34 of the TAIS:

A working definition of Internet governance is the development and
application by governments, the private sector and civil society, *in their
respective roles*, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making
procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

There is considerable discussion about what the "respective roles" are and
Article 35 is not completely satisfactory in that respect.

I have always argued that the "respective roles" of the different
stakeholders can (and should) vary according to : the issue, the venue where
it is discussed and the stage of the discussion. Such a workshop would
probably benefit from exploring in some detail those various dimensions, to
move beyond the classic oppositions on abstract principles into more
operational territory.

In particular, there is a sort of symmetry between the ICANN space where
governments want more say and more traditional IGOs where CS and business
want more say. This is all about "embodiment of the WSIS principles in
Internet Governance processes".

An important element is to define what is the expected outcome of the
workshop and in which of the categories identified in the MAG discussions it
fits : probably the one where actors know the different elements of the
debate but simply do not agree ... yet. Hence the format could be more an
open discussion than a panel of experts. But a key factor of success will be
to make sure that all the different viewpoints are represented in the room.

A way to do this would probably be to outreach ahead of time to a range of
key stakeholders to promote the workshop and make sure that they will
attend.

Important thread.

Best

Bertrand



On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  >Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be
> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the Caucus
> single out >Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments in IG" ?
>
> I agree, the workshop should be on a title something like
>
> "Global IG - the role of the governments, civil society and the private
> sector'.
>
> Just interrogating the role of governments is either reducing IG to CIR
> management, or, if we are speaking of all aspects of IG,  it is a bit
> presumptuous, in the sense that governments obviously see themselves in
> 'the' central role. We may want to challenge that, especially at the global
> level, but best to do with a workshop with the above kind of a title, that
> looking at the 'role of government in IG' which seem, at least to me, to
> suggest that it was something of a new and developing concept.
>
> Parminder
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hello Ian
>
> Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be
> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the Caucus
> single out Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments in IG" ?
>
> This moves the role of Governments center stage with the roles of other
> stakeholder groups undiscussed.
>
> It would be more appropriate if the workshop is about the Role of various
> stakeholder groups, as a part of which, the role of Governments is debated.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>
>>  I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions –
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a national level
>>    2. international co-operation of governments
>>    3. governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures
>>
>>
>>
>> On the former – I know how this is organized at a national level differs
>> vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed study on this we
>> could suggest for a panel?
>>
>>
>>
>> Similarly on the latter two – what are the current areas of international
>> co-operation across various organizations? Has anyone a good study on this?
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a successful
>> workshop here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>> PO Box 429
>>
>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>>
>> Australia
>>
>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>
>> www.ianpeter.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 23 March 2009 05:19
>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
>>
>>
>>
>> Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of
>> government in IG on this thread.
>>
>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>
>> I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and
>> for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in
>> current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of
>> different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.
>>
>> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>>
>> This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
>> equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
>> the JPA. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ginger
>>
>>
>>
>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>>
>> DiploFoundation
>>
>> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>>
>>
>>
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/53203444/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 05:23:03 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:23:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread
In-Reply-To: <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net>
References: <CEB1B8B6F888425A852E5C06386BB5C2@GINGERLAPTOP> <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <19CE7F00-E1CF-4C4B-B288-66A701C720B4@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that such-and- 
> such NN regulation is necessary to be observed by the concerned  
> actors, would that not set the default global regime for NN. Do  
> developing countries - even a relatively larger and more powerful  
> one  like India - have any serious options but to accept the default  
> regime.

In general, we tend to focus too exclusively on negotiated frameworks  
for IG, whether intergovernmental, private sector, or  
multistakeholder, at the expense of frameworks  that are in effect  
unilaterally imposed by powerful states, firms, and industry  
associations, or that emerge through the adoption by the same of  
convergent policies and practices. So I agree that NN policies adopted  
by the US or US plus EU could indeed have generalizable configurative  
effects across frontiers, and that this provides grounds for their  
assessment in the IGF context.  It just has to be framed well...

Best,

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Mar 24 05:37:33 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:37:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com> <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net> <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Bertrand,

I have a slightly different view.  I've always thought the "respective  
roles" bit is the single worst part of the definition, one that  
confuses much more than it clarifies.  We put this in the WGIG report  
at the insistence of a couple of developing country reps who wanted to  
establish that policy is for governments full stop, and when we spent  
an afternoon trying to specify what those respective roles really  
were, the discussion quickly revealed abundant ambiguities and  
overlaps.  Many of the functions listed for each actor is or should be  
shared across them, so the whole effort ultimately seemed like a just  
a political sop to folks who had a rather restrictive vision of the  
relationship between state and society.  Hence, from the standpoint of  
promoting multistakeholderism et al, I can't help wondering whether re- 
fetishizing these artificial categories and trying to specify how they  
apply in different issue spaces, stages etc would really be such a  
constructive activity...?

Best,

Bill

On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Interesting exchange. And a good progressive refinement on the  
> topic. This is clearly something of interest for all stakeholders.
>
> Such a workshop clearly would build upon the now famous IG  
> definition of art. 34 of the TAIS:
>
> A working definition of Internet governance is the development and  
> application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in  
> their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision- 
> making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use  
> of the Internet.
>
> There is considerable discussion about what the "respective roles"  
> are and Article 35 is not completely satisfactory in that respect.
>
> I have always argued that the "respective roles" of the different  
> stakeholders can (and should) vary according to : the issue, the  
> venue where it is discussed and the stage of the discussion. Such a  
> workshop would probably benefit from exploring in some detail those  
> various dimensions, to move beyond the classic oppositions on  
> abstract principles into more operational territory.
>
> In particular, there is a sort of symmetry between the ICANN space  
> where governments want more say and more traditional IGOs where CS  
> and business want more say. This is all about "embodiment of the  
> WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes".
>
> An important element is to define what is the expected outcome of  
> the workshop and in which of the categories identified in the MAG  
> discussions it fits : probably the one where actors know the  
> different elements of the debate but simply do not agree ... yet.  
> Hence the format could be more an open discussion than a panel of  
> experts. But a key factor of success will be to make sure that all  
> the different viewpoints are represented in the room.
>
> A way to do this would probably be to outreach ahead of time to a  
> range of key stakeholders to promote the workshop and make sure that  
> they will attend.
>
> Important thread.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Parminder  
> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be  
> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the  
> Caucus single out >Government and propose a theme "Role of  
> Governments in IG" ?
>
> I agree, the workshop should be on a title something like
>
> "Global IG - the role of the governments, civil society and the  
> private sector'.
>
> Just interrogating the role of governments is either reducing IG to  
> CIR management, or, if we are speaking of all aspects of IG,  it is  
> a bit presumptuous, in the sense that governments obviously see  
> themselves in 'the' central role. We may want to challenge that,  
> especially at the global level, but best to do with a workshop with  
> the above kind of a title, that looking at the 'role of government  
> in IG' which seem, at least to me, to suggest that it was something  
> of a new and developing concept.
>
> Parminder
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ian
>>
>> Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be  
>> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would  
>> the Caucus single out Government and propose a theme "Role of  
>> Governments in IG" ?
>>
>> This moves the role of Governments center stage with the roles of  
>> other stakeholder groups undiscussed.
>>
>> It would be more appropriate if the workshop is about the Role of  
>> various stakeholder groups, as a part of which, the role of  
>> Governments is debated.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Peter  
>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions –
>>
>>
>> appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a national level
>> international co-operation of governments
>> governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures
>>
>> On the former – I know how this is organized at a national level  
>> differs vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed  
>> study on this we could suggest for a panel?
>>
>>
>> Similarly on the latter two – what are the current areas of  
>> international co-operation across various organizations? Has anyone  
>> a good study on this?
>>
>>
>> A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a  
>> successful workshop here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>> PO Box 429
>>
>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>>
>> Australia
>>
>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>
>> www.ianpeter.com
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 23 March 2009 05:19
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
>>
>>
>> Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of  
>> government in IG on this thread.
>>
>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>
>> I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF,  
>> and for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this  
>> theme in current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC,  
>> discussions of different actions of national governments, forum  
>> shopping, etc.
>>
>> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>>
>> This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
>> equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the  
>> MAG and
>> the JPA. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ginger
>>
>>
>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>>
>> DiploFoundation
>>
>> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>>
>>
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for  
> the Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of  
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de  
> Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/bc981f88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 06:15:33 2009
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:15:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] On the process of proposing workshop themes
Message-ID: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Milton,

I did not have time to respond immediately to the concerns you expressed in
response to my earlier posting. And certainly did not want it to "freeze
people in place" as a result :-)

I may have mis-expressed myself or led you to read too much in what I tried
to explain. Parminder I think gave some of the elements of answer. This is
not a radically new process, just an attempt at improving things
progressively.

Ginger is doing it exactly the way it is intended and the IGC is likely to
provide a very useful contribution by discussing threads.

I'll try to clarify a bit here. Because I can assure you that the implicit
message is not the one you summarize in your mail below. And this is not an
attempt at power grab by the MAG members (should go without saying but
always better to say it :-).

The fundamental starting points were :

   - we are starting this process earlier this year than before : this is
   good and gives some time to work more progressively
   - preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize
   workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively unconstrained manner
   is a critical element of the IGF : this bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably
   one of the most precious features of this innovative experiment (it is in my
   view anyway)
   - at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have fewer
   events running in parallel, because people are torn and forced to make
   difficult choices among things that interest them given the short duration
   of the meeting
   - finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness" where
   it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same theme, organized
   by different actors pushing only their own agenda, and to try and encourage
   more direct interaction to move the issue forward; isn't it Hamadoun Touré
   who likes to say : "from friction comes light" and I think I remember you
   are often the one advocating "real debate" to sort out positions :-)


That is the starting point. Hence the proposal to call for expressions of
interest on themes rather than full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage
(they will naturally come later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of
interest on various themes but also allows people who do not intend to
organize a workshop themselves to indicate that they think a specific topic
should be addressed. This is what I did last year by putting an early
placeholder in favor of a workshop on "dimensions of cybersecurity" while
indicating that I did not intend to organize it myself.

Furthermore, it allows a preliminary debate on the formulation of workshop
titles. The discussion on this list on the theme "role of governments in IG"
is a perfect example. Instead of having two workshops in parallel, one
organized by governments to explain whay they should have more say and the
other one by the IGC to explain why CS should have more say, wouldn't it be
better to have a single one on the "role of the different stakeholders" ?

The IGF is a unique space for dialogue (and/or debate) among people with
different viewpoints. It should not result in small groups of like-minded
people agreeing among themselves in parallel rooms. The "silo" effect is as
bad in IGF as it is in ICANN. Rather than forcing people into "MAG-defined
groups", it is just an attempt at facilitating early interaction among
people with common issues of interest or concern. And yes, they may have
"conflicting views or interests"; but isn't this what the IGF should be
about too ?

However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of
like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should be
given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their viewpoint to
the community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and the guiding
principle in chosing formats and composition of workshops should be what
kind of outcomes can be expected.

All this is about balance and quality of outcomes. The IGF is progressively
structuring and this is only a small step to help it produce better results.


In a nutshell, the role of the MAG will not be - and should not be - the one
you fear. The MAG is and should remain a facilitator. Ideally, the result of
this first call will provide a list of themes and interested actors,
allowing proponents to see who else is interested in a given issue, and
facilitating them getting together. It is also expected to provide a
diversity of formulations for the various issues and choosing the proper
formulation is often a first step towards better mutual understanding.

I hope this alleviates somewhat your concerns. But I thank you nonetheless
for expressing them : it is a good reminder that the best intentions can :
1) be mis-interpreted if they are not correctly explained and 2) present
dangers not anticipated if a new procedure is mis-used. A useful cautionary
call.

Sincere thanks to Ginger for her efforts to create thematic threads that
help structure discussion.

Hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand










On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
> Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
> discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.
>
> My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are
> basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the
> method of workshop planning and development will be completely different
> this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed
> concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of
> those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing
> workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if
> certain worst-case scenarios play out.
>
> We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program
> for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have
> is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge
> pot and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a
> bunch of people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes
> conflicting agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those
> changes please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate
> response.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>
>  Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this
> thread.
>
>
>
> Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
> (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/a4a08b1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Mar 24 06:17:40 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:17:40 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Bills recollection is right. We tried in the WGIG a whole afternoon in the Chateau to discuss how procedures for interaction among the various stakeholders could be established This discussion failed completly and ended up with this uncomplete list of various roles in para. 30 ff. (see below). 
 
The real problem is not to define the individual role of the individual stakeholder, the problem is how the stakeholderas interact. Is it subordination, domination, master-slave relationship or just peaceful co-existence with non-interference? It is a question of policy development and decision making. And insofar this is also a procedural issue. The general principle is clear: all stakeholders have to be involved and there is something like "equality" (in a more philosophical sense) among the stakeholders which are very unequal. And here is the challenge: How you can develop proceduress for PDP and decision making whichr eflect adequatle the unequal equality. Its it just power? Is it legitimacy? And how you measure power and define legitimacy? What are the sources of legitimacy? Just elections? Market accpetnace? Knowledge and epxertise? At the end it is an issue of redistribution of power. We all are witnessing a great global powershift and this leads unavidable to a new power struggle which has just started. 
 
With other words you are confronted with the very broad issue of a new general governance model in a global world. Insofar ICANN and IGF are good laboratories. In ICANN you have PDPs for various issues and constituencies (CNSO is one example) and you have also procedures for interaction among stakeholders (still weak) like the GAC-Board relationship. This is one reason why I again and again call for more detailed procedures for interation among ALAC and the Board. 
 
But Bertrand is also right, that you need probably for each issue a special procedure. There will be no procedural model which fits to all issues. However each procedure has to be based on certain general principles like bottom up and multistakeholderism. The triangular relationship will look rather different from issue to issue but there will be no balance if the PDP has just one or two corners. There can be "leadership" by one stakeholder with regard to one issue but this leadership has to be embedded into the triangular mechanism of communication, coordination and collaboration (or enhanced cooperation) and needs transparency and accountability. I have labeled this the "Tower of Triangles" where you have for each issue a different constellation among the three main stakeholders, with other groups (including the technical community) involved. 
 
I support very much to have such a workshop and I am sure that we will see also some new developments in the years ahaed with greater maturity of the new constituencies which are just emerging. 
 
Wolfgang
 
"30.     Governments. The roles and responsibilities of Governments include:

        * Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, as appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and coordination at the regional and international levels.

        * Creating an enabling environment for information and communication technology (ICT) development.

        * Oversight functions.

        * Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards.

        * Treaty-making.

        * Development of best practices.

        * Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs.

        * Promoting research and development of technologies and standards.

        * Promoting access to ICT services.

        * Combating cybercrime.

        * Fostering international and regional cooperation.

        * Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT applications.

        * Addressing general developmental issues.

        * Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity.

        * Dispute resolution and arbitration.

31.     The private sector. The roles and responsibilities of the private sector include:

        * Industry self-regulation.

        * Development of best practices.

        * Development of policy proposals, guidelines and tools for policymakers and other stakeholders.

        * Research and development of technologies, standards and processes.

        * Contribution to the drafting of national law and participation in national and international policy development.

        * Fostering innovation.

        * Arbitration and dispute resolution.

        * Promoting capacity-building.

32.     Civil society. The roles and responsibilities of civil society include:

        * Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills sharing).

        * Promoting various public interest objectives.

        * Facilitating network-building.

        * Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes.

        * Bringing perspectives of marginalized groups, including, for example, excluded communities and grass-roots activists.

        * Engaging in policy processes.

        * Contributing expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of ICT policy areas.

        * Contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up, people-centred and inclusive.

        * Research and development of technologies and standards.

        * Development and dissemination of best practices.

        * Helping to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to the needs of all members of society.

        * Encouraging social responsibility and good governance practice.

        * Advocating for the development of social projects and activities that are critical but may not be "fashionable" or profitable.

        * Contributing to shaping visions of human-centred information societies based on human rights, sustainable development, social justice and empowerment.

33.     Furthermore, the WGIG recognized that the contribution to the Internet of the academic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting and Internet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. They interact extensively with and within all stakeholder groups.

34.     The WGIG also reviewed the respective roles and responsibilities of existing intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums and the various mechanisms for both formal and informal consultations among these institutions. It noted that there is scope to improve coordination to some extent.

 

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

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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 06:31:06 2009
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:31:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
	 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
	 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <954259bd0903240331g5f86d76dq3cc48b813519cbd4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comments.

Exactly my point : "respective roles" is the core issue (key but most
ambiguous part of the IG definition) and the categorization of article 35 is
not doing justice enough to the complexity of overlapping - and shared -
responsibilities. Without getting into the discussion now (that will take us
far), this is exactly what such a workshop should address.

Wolfgang is right on point in his response to our exchange : the question is
not to segregate the different categories of actors with exclusive roles
(higher and lower ones) but to study how they interact in processes (PDPs,
...).

This is all about what is a multi-stakeholder governance model and how does
it function in the five different stages : agenda-setting, regime drafting,
formal adoption/validation, implementation and enforcement. If the IGF and
ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder governance as we
believe they are, this discussion is a central contribution to a better
understanding of how it can work.

As 180 or so Heads of State or Government have explicitly endorsed the
multi-stakeholder approach in the WSIS documents, the question is not
"whether" it should be pursued but "how" this should function. And a part of
it is unchartered territory.

But let's not launch a whole thread at that stage. Even if it is a great
topic. Sorry for having started it :-) Just suggest the workshop.

Best

Bertrand






On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
> I have a slightly different view.  I've always thought the "respective
> roles" bit is the single worst part of the definition, one that confuses
> much more than it clarifies.  We put this in the WGIG report at the
> insistence of a couple of developing country reps who wanted to establish
> that policy is for governments full stop, and when we spent an afternoon
> trying to specify what those respective roles really were, the discussion
> quickly revealed abundant ambiguities and overlaps.  Many of the functions
> listed for each actor is or should be shared across them, so the whole
> effort ultimately seemed like a just a political sop to folks who had a
> rather restrictive vision of the relationship between state and society.
>  Hence, from the standpoint of promoting multistakeholderism et al, I can't
> help wondering whether re-fetishizing these artificial categories and trying
> to specify how they apply in different issue spaces, stages etc would really
> be such a constructive activity...?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Interesting exchange. And a good progressive refinement on the topic. This
> is clearly something of interest for all stakeholders.
>
> Such a workshop clearly would build upon the now famous IG definition of
> art. 34 of the TAIS:
>
> A working definition of Internet governance is the development and
> application by governments, the private sector and civil society, *in
> their respective roles*, of shared principles, norms, rules,
> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use
> of the Internet.
>
> There is considerable discussion about what the "respective roles" are and
> Article 35 is not completely satisfactory in that respect.
>
> I have always argued that the "respective roles" of the different
> stakeholders can (and should) vary according to : the issue, the venue where
> it is discussed and the stage of the discussion. Such a workshop would
> probably benefit from exploring in some detail those various dimensions, to
> move beyond the classic oppositions on abstract principles into more
> operational territory.
>
> In particular, there is a sort of symmetry between the ICANN space where
> governments want more say and more traditional IGOs where CS and business
> want more say. This is all about "embodiment of the WSIS principles in
> Internet Governance processes".
>
> An important element is to define what is the expected outcome of the
> workshop and in which of the categories identified in the MAG discussions it
> fits : probably the one where actors know the different elements of the
> debate but simply do not agree ... yet. Hence the format could be more an
> open discussion than a panel of experts. But a key factor of success will be
> to make sure that all the different viewpoints are represented in the room.
>
> A way to do this would probably be to outreach ahead of time to a range of
> key stakeholders to promote the workshop and make sure that they will
> attend.
>
> Important thread.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  >Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be
>> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the Caucus
>> single out >Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments in IG" ?
>>
>> I agree, the workshop should be on a title something like
>>
>> "Global IG - the role of the governments, civil society and the private
>> sector'.
>>
>> Just interrogating the role of governments is either reducing IG to CIR
>> management, or, if we are speaking of all aspects of IG,  it is a bit
>> presumptuous, in the sense that governments obviously see themselves in
>> 'the' central role. We may want to challenge that, especially at the global
>> level, but best to do with a workshop with the above kind of a title, that
>> looking at the 'role of government in IG' which seem, at least to me, to
>> suggest that it was something of a new and developing concept.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ian
>>
>> Role of Governments in IG is an interesting topic and needs to be
>> discussed. But in the context of multi-stakeholderism, why would the Caucus
>> single out Government and propose a theme "Role of Governments in IG" ?
>>
>> This moves the role of Governments center stage with the roles of other
>> stakeholder groups undiscussed.
>>
>> It would be more appropriate if the workshop is about the Role of various
>> stakeholder groups, as a part of which, the role of Governments is debated.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  I also agree this is a good proposal. There are three dimensions –
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. appropriate regulation/governmental involvement at a national
>>>    level
>>>    2. international co-operation of governments
>>>    3. governmental involvement in global multistakeholder structures
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the former – I know how this is organized at a national level differs
>>> vastly from country to country. Has anyone done a detailed study on this we
>>> could suggest for a panel?
>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly on the latter two – what are the current areas of international
>>> co-operation across various organizations? Has anyone a good study on this?
>>>
>>>
>>> A couple of good introductory studies would be the key to a successful
>>> workshop here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>> PO Box 429
>>>
>>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>>>
>>> Australia
>>>
>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>>
>>> www.ianpeter.com
>>>
>>>
>>>   ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* 23 March 2009 05:19
>>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
>>>
>>>
>>> Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of
>>> government in IG on this thread.
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>>
>>> I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, and
>>> for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this theme in
>>> current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, discussions of
>>> different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.
>>>
>>> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>>>
>>> This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
>>> equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
>>> the JPA. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>>>
>>> DiploFoundation
>>>
>>> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>>>
>>>
>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>>
>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> New book: *Governing Global Electronic Networks,*
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/f186b014/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Mar 24 07:08:36 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:08:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>,<0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE7B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Again, a quick round of (perhaps premature) applause for Bill, Mary and the others who have obviously worked hard on enabling ICANN to operate in an open and trasparent manner in at least one corner of its operations.

I suspect some (of course not McTim) might be objecting to this because it could show the other constituencies own processes in a comparatively negative light.

Even the transition to ongoing operations is set up through a much clearer than usual, well-defined process. Bravo.

Lee


________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Cc: Mary Wong
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

Hi McTim,

I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:

> Hullo Mary,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>
>> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial
>> organizations;
>
> yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
> excluded.

The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that
patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade
associations, investors) and will be represented in other stakeholder
groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme of putting
actors into one stakeholder group and not another is ICANN's, not
ours, and it maps with standard practices in public policymaking
bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many standards
bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of actors per se,
sorry but there's a big world out there that for sound reasons are not
based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of it.  The proposal just
says how the board's model is to be locally implemented by specifying
that the noncommercial users SG is for noncommercial users just as the
commercial users SG is for commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should
be recalled that we do include the possibility of flexibility
regarding orgs and individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not
ineligible due to their own or their organization’s membership in
another GNSO SG or the ccNSO.

If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture
stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced
with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply
different interests will magically emerge through cool technical
reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.
But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework alongside
others would be rather unfair.

> The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.

No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone
has to review and decide on applications, and this is an appropriately
accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided by explicit
charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke filled room,
and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in which someone
with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial rather than one of
the business SGs would be rejected.  And constituency approval is left
to the board, informed by a public comment period.

>>
>> - In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User
>> Constituency
>> (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member
>> (individual
>> or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new
>> NCSG, and no
>> existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new
>> structure.
>
> Except for:
>
> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the
> June 2009 ICANN
> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> terms of the 3
> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until
> June 2010."

Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the
transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in
engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a
time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents
capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just be
beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six plug
and play candidates on the fly.

These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject
the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and
transparent consultation process and continuously revised in
interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is
far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the
table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and
Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these
too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?

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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 07:39:19 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:39:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903240331g5f86d76dq3cc48b813519cbd4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com> <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net> <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com> <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch> <954259bd0903240331g5f86d76dq3cc48b813519cbd4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <622035B7-7C06-41C1-ABF6-AAC4494D43EA@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Bertrand,

On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Exactly my point : "respective roles" is the core issue (key but  
> most ambiguous part of the IG definition) and the categorization of  
> article 35 is not doing justice enough to the complexity of  
> overlapping - and shared - responsibilities. Without getting into  
> the discussion now (that will take us far), this is exactly what  
> such a workshop should address.
>
> Wolfgang is right on point in his response to our exchange : the  
> question is not to segregate the different categories of actors with  
> exclusive roles (higher and lower ones) but to study how they  
> interact in processes (PDPs, ...).

In part it's a framing problem---invoking the respective roles"  
language as a starting point could, in some eyes, reify the categories  
and legitimate their supposedly distinct boundaries in a manner that's  
unhelpful (this was a very political thing if you recall, and CS  
people including the caucus took a little heat for questioning it four  
years ago).  And that could lead to an operational problem---no matter  
how much you say we're talking about relationships not roles,  
Wolgang's triangles and not monads, I suspect the discussion will  
revert back to the baseline and government reps (ok, you excepted)  
might get stuck on the "we're sovereigns with exclusive authority to  
make policy" mantra.

I'd rather not frame it as exploring/building on the roles language  
and just say it's a workshop about modeling MS processes in different  
IG issue spaces.  Focus on the lines transversing each circle, rather  
than whether in this case circle A is bigger than circle B while in  
that case B is bigger than C and so on.
>
> But let's not launch a whole thread at that stage. Even if it is a  
> great topic. Sorry for having started it :-) Just suggest the  
> workshop.

Fair nuff.  Hopefully the word smithing will manage this deftly.

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Mar 24 08:20:04 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:20:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49C8CFF4.10209@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

I agree with Parminder and Bertrand's views on the new approach to 
select themes and agendas for workshops. It is an attempt to reduce the 
number of workshops in general and those with overlapping topics in 
particular. I don't think that this approach will increase the power or 
influence of the MAG, not least because the MAG lacks the capacity to 
micro-manage all workshops.
I see Milton's point that the need to compromise could lead to a 
watering down of topics. However, if we manage to significantly decrease 
the number of workshops, we should gain some space for those (hopefully 
few) cases where workshop organizers are unable to agree on a common 
agenda. Two workshops about related topics would be to the detriment of 
both workshops as they would probably have to put up with a smaller 
audience.

As Bertrand said, the main point is that this new approach doesn't 
affect the main asset of the IGF, the bottom up method of choosing 
topcis and panelists. Only the "change control" might be shared by more 
people. The overall result could be quite good.

jeanette

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Milton,
> 
> I did not have time to respond immediately to the concerns you expressed 
> in response to my earlier posting. And certainly did not want it to 
> "freeze people in place" as a result :-)
> 
> I may have mis-expressed myself or led you to read too much in what I 
> tried to explain. Parminder I think gave some of the elements of answer. 
> This is not a radically new process, just an attempt at improving things 
> progressively.
> 
> Ginger is doing it exactly the way it is intended and the IGC is likely 
> to provide a very useful contribution by discussing threads.
> 
> I'll try to clarify a bit here. Because I can assure you that the 
> implicit message is not the one you summarize in your mail below. And 
> this is not an attempt at power grab by the MAG members (should go 
> without saying but always better to say it :-).
> 
> The fundamental starting points were :
> 
>     * we are starting this process earlier this year than before : this
>       is good and gives some time to work more progressively
>     * preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize
>       workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively
>       unconstrained manner is a critical element of the IGF : this
>       bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably one of the most precious
>       features of this innovative experiment (it is in my view anyway)
>     * at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have
>       fewer events running in parallel, because people are torn and
>       forced to make difficult choices among things that interest them
>       given the short duration of the meeting
>     * finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness"
>       where it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same
>       theme, organized by different actors pushing only their own
>       agenda, and to try and encourage more direct interaction to move
>       the issue forward; isn't it Hamadoun Touré who likes to say :
>       "from friction comes light" and I think I remember you are often
>       the one advocating "real debate" to sort out positions :-)
> 
> 
> That is the starting point. Hence the proposal to call for expressions 
> of interest on themes rather than full-fledged workshop proposals at 
> that stage (they will naturally come later). It has the benefit of 
> sensing the level of interest on various themes but also allows people 
> who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to indicate that 
> they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I did last 
> year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on 
> "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to 
> organize it myself.
> 
> Furthermore, it allows a preliminary debate on the formulation of 
> workshop titles. The discussion on this list on the theme "role of 
> governments in IG" is a perfect example. Instead of having two workshops 
> in parallel, one organized by governments to explain whay they should 
> have more say and the other one by the IGC to explain why CS should have 
> more say, wouldn't it be better to have a single one on the "role of the 
> different stakeholders" ?
> 
> The IGF is a unique space for dialogue (and/or debate) among people with 
> different viewpoints. It should not result in small groups of 
> like-minded people agreeing among themselves in parallel rooms. The 
> "silo" effect is as bad in IGF as it is in ICANN. Rather than forcing 
> people into "MAG-defined groups", it is just an attempt at facilitating 
> early interaction among people with common issues of interest or 
> concern. And yes, they may have "conflicting views or interests"; but 
> isn't this what the IGF should be about too ?
> 
> However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of 
> like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should 
> be given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their 
> viewpoint to the community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and 
> the guiding principle in chosing formats and composition of workshops 
> should be what kind of outcomes can be expected.
> 
> All this is about balance and quality of outcomes. The IGF is 
> progressively structuring and this is only a small step to help it 
> produce better results.
> 
> In a nutshell, the role of the MAG will not be - and should not be - the 
> one you fear. The MAG is and should remain a facilitator. Ideally, the 
> result of this first call will provide a list of themes and interested 
> actors, allowing proponents to see who else is interested in a given 
> issue, and facilitating them getting together. It is also expected to 
> provide a diversity of formulations for the various issues and choosing 
> the proper formulation is often a first step towards better mutual 
> understanding.
> 
> I hope this alleviates somewhat your concerns. But I thank you 
> nonetheless for expressing them : it is a good reminder that the best 
> intentions can : 1) be mis-interpreted if they are not correctly 
> explained and 2) present dangers not anticipated if a new procedure is 
> mis-used. A useful cautionary call.
> 
> Sincere thanks to Ginger for her efforts to create thematic threads that 
> help structure discussion.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bertrand
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu 
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
> 
>      
>     Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
>     discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.
>      
>     My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are
>     basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that
>     the method of workshop planning and development will be completely
>     different this year. I am surprised that there has been no response
>     to my expressed concerns about this, and until there is some
>     clarification or discussion of those basic parameters, I think it is
>     unwise to invest time in developing workshops. Indeed, I am not even
>     sure I would plan to attend the IGF if certain worst-case scenarios
>     play out.
>      
>     We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent
>     program for a workshop and don't line up any people, because
>     whatever idea you have is going to be treated as a general "theme"
>     and then thrown into a huge pot and re-sorted into MAG-defined
>     groups." And those groups may be a bunch of people who hardly know
>     each other with different, sometimes conflicting agendas. If I am
>     not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes please
>     correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response. 
> 
>     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:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>         <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>         *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
>         *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
> 
>         Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on
>         this thread.
> 
>          
> 
>         Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and
>         application (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
> 
>          
> 
>         Ginger
> 
>          
> 
>         Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
> 
>         DiploFoundation
> 
>         Coordinator IGCBP 09
> 
>          
> 
>         www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
> 
>         VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
> 
>          
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the 
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of 
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de 
> Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 24 09:29:27 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:29:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p0620071ec5ee8f188a5a@[10.0.1.2]>

Bill,

I wonder if you (or someone else) could address the problem of 
potential capture.

I understand that the voting scheme is to allow large organizations 4 
votes, small organizations 2 votes and individuals 1 vote.  It seems 
to me that it would not be difficult to mount a campaign in which a 
significant number of individuals, all of whom have a legitimate 
interest in ICANN, could be mobilized to vote for a specific slate of 
candidates, in effect capturing the new organization.  such a capture 
could theoretically be engineered by either the current group of 
leaders, or by another group completely outside the current 
structure, or anywhere inbetween.

I understand that the problem of preventing capture is a difficult 
one.  Our experience with the ICANN direct elections in 2001 proved 
that beyond a doubt.  so I'm not arguing against the proposal just 
because the group hasn't definitively solved this intractable 
problem.  However I really would like to hear opinions regarding the 
capture issue, because I think it is a real possibility.

Regards,

George

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

At 9:51 AM +0100 3/24/09, William Drake wrote:
>Hi McTim,
>
>I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.
>
>On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>>Hullo Mary,
>>
>>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>>
>>>- Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial organizations;
>>
>>yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
>>excluded.
>
>The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that 
>patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade 
>associations, investors) and will be represented in other 
>stakeholder groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme 
>of putting actors into one stakeholder group and not another is 
>ICANN's, not ours, and it maps with standard practices in public 
>policymaking bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many 
>standards bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of 
>actors per se, sorry but there's a big world out there that for 
>sound reasons are not based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of 
>it.  The proposal just says how the board's model is to be locally 
>implemented by specifying that the noncommercial users SG is for 
>noncommercial users just as the commercial users SG is for 
>commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should be recalled that we do 
>include the possibility of flexibility regarding orgs and 
>individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not ineligible due to 
>their own or their organization's membership in another GNSO SG or 
>the ccNSO.
>
>If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture 
>stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced 
>with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply 
>different interests will magically emerge through cool technical 
>reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.  
>But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework 
>alongside others would be rather unfair.
>
>>The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.
>
>No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone 
>has to review and decide on applications, and this is an 
>appropriately accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided 
>by explicit charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke 
>filled room, and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in 
>which someone with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial 
>rather than one of the business SGs would be rejected.  And 
>constituency approval is left to the board, informed by a public 
>comment period.
>
>>>
>>>- In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>>(NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member (individual
>>>or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new NCSG, and no
>>>existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new structure.
>>
>>Except for:
>>
>>" 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the 
>>June 2009 ICANN
>>meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
>>terms of the 3
>>NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until 
>>June 2010."
>
>Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the 
>transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in 
>engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a 
>time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents 
>capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just 
>be beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six 
>plug and play candidates on the fly.
>
>These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject 
>the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and 
>transparent consultation process and continuously revised in 
>interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is 
>far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the 
>table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and 
>Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these 
>too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?
>
>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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar 24 12:40:18 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:10:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] 'Internationalisation workshop'
In-Reply-To: <DD8388E66869417185E46F463BFDD019@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com> <DD8388E66869417185E46F463BFDD019@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <49C90CF2.7010508@itforchange.net>


Hi All

Since the theme of 'internationalisation of IG' (loosely put) seem to 
have received early attention in MAG meetings, I suggest we propose one 
workshop on this subject.
What about 'Democratic internationalization of IG - Exploring various 
institutional options'

The term 'democratic' before internationalisation brings in civil 
society concerns regarding possible use of this term for a simple 
statist takeover of global IG processes.

WGIG report explore some institutional options for such 
internationalisation. Since WSIS documents have to be relatively 
definitive  on such things , these options are not mentioned there, but 
I think the WSIS's IG related follow up processes are precisely to take 
such discussions/ possibilities forward.

There is increasing pressure to move forward on the 
'internationalisation' issue and it best if civil society takes lead in 
exploring/ proposing some options. In doing so it will help IGF to move 
forward in its principal mandate - that of helping (and if needed 
nudging forward) global Internet policy processes, which includes new 
institutional  forms, as and when needed.

There is going to be  a main session on this theme - our workshop can 
connect to it.

If an early workshop proposal is put by the IGC on the table I expect 
some governmental actors to get also interested.

parminder

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 13:13:54 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:13:54 +0500
Subject: [governance] 'Internationalisation workshop'
In-Reply-To: <49C90CF2.7010508@itforchange.net>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DD8388E66869417185E46F463BFDD019@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <49C90CF2.7010508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <701af9f70903241013u71b29719m83c30ea60b704180@mail.gmail.com>

I would like to back this notion with you Parminder and I would like
to revert back to the initial recommendations from WSIS 2003 and what
the WGIG sorted that: "
- Transparency (governance and statutory requirements, meetings,
translation, documentation)
- Accountability (structure and functioning of decision-making powers,
participation and comment, appeals)
- Democracy (roles, composition, and representation of stakeholders,
participation of disadvantaged stakeholders like developing countries
and civil society)"

Then the most debated issue was Multialteralism and Civil Society's
role and the issue about who governs an international process and I
would like to revert you all to the following link and information:
http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/736.htm

Multistakeholderism or Internationalization?

This led to an interesting discussion about the possible Internet
governance framework and its legitimacy. While India insisted that
only “governments and governments alone can claim to speak on behalf
of the public”, Syria and others mentioned the ITU’s experience with
involving the private sector. For civil society, this had been a
constant problem, as the ITU sector membership involves heavy fees.
The “intergovernmentalization” faction also includes China, South
Africa and a couple of other governments. The ITU itself also clearly
wants to play a bigger role in Internet governance. The overarching
question was the legitimacy of the respective governance mechanisms.
Lyndall Shope-Mafole, WGIG member and former South African delegation
leader to the WSIS negotiations, made the problem very clear:

“How do you make the mechanism fully accountable when it is
multi-stakeholder? The roles or the mandates or the powers or the
legitimacy of the different stakeholders is not the same: Governments
that are elected that have public accountability in their countries;
the private sector that is accountable to its stakeholders; civil
society – I’m not sure what the accountability to civil society is.
The only legitimate mechanism that we know that represents the will of
the peoples of the world is the U.N. system.”

From all the proceedings todate starting from Athens, I haven't been
able to find a concrete strategy to bring the mechanism to be fully
endured by the Civil Society and that the process to be recognized by
the IGF itself in its totality. If you look at the press release from
Athens by the UN, you will see what I mean:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/pi1750.doc.htm

How do we go about setting the global stage to recapture and proceed
with this debate. This is very important for Civil Society and we as
members of the CS Caucus should stand up and lead this workshop and I
would recommend the IGC to take this workshop forward with full
thrust.


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Since the theme of 'internationalisation of IG' (loosely put) seem to have
> received early attention in MAG meetings, I suggest we propose one workshop
> on this subject.
> What about 'Democratic internationalization of IG - Exploring various
> institutional options'
>
> The term 'democratic' before internationalisation brings in civil society
> concerns regarding possible use of this term for a simple statist takeover
> of global IG processes.
>
> WGIG report explore some institutional options for such
> internationalisation. Since WSIS documents have to be relatively definitive
>  on such things , these options are not mentioned there, but I think the
> WSIS's IG related follow up processes are precisely to take such
> discussions/ possibilities forward.
>
> There is increasing pressure to move forward on the 'internationalisation'
> issue and it best if civil society takes lead in exploring/ proposing some
> options. In doing so it will help IGF to move forward in its principal
> mandate - that of helping (and if needed nudging forward) global Internet
> policy processes, which includes new institutional  forms, as and when
> needed.
>
> There is going to be  a main session on this theme - our workshop can
> connect to it.
>
> If an early workshop proposal is put by the IGC on the table I expect some
> governmental actors to get also interested.
>
> 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
>



-- 

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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 13:22:39 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:22:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] 'Internationalisation workshop'
In-Reply-To: <49C90CF2.7010508@itforchange.net>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DD8388E66869417185E46F463BFDD019@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <49C90CF2.7010508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903241022y6ad6ce18ucd34d1787df601e5@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder, I agree this suggestion and this view is logically on the way
after Tunis 2005. IG process must evaluate also action plan and Tunis Agenda
and to know what has been done and what remind to do.
To internationalize IG require a deep debate allowing mulstistakeholders to
built democratically a sustanaible ICT framework for all those are still on
less like in developping countries.

Baudouin

2009/3/24 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
> Hi All
>
> Since the theme of 'internationalisation of IG' (loosely put) seem to have
> received early attention in MAG meetings, I suggest we propose one workshop
> on this subject.
> What about 'Democratic internationalization of IG - Exploring various
> institutional options'
>
> The term 'democratic' before internationalisation brings in civil society
> concerns regarding possible use of this term for a simple statist takeover
> of global IG processes.
>
> WGIG report explore some institutional options for such
> internationalisation. Since WSIS documents have to be relatively definitive
>  on such things , these options are not mentioned there, but I think the
> WSIS's IG related follow up processes are precisely to take such
> discussions/ possibilities forward.
>
> There is increasing pressure to move forward on the 'internationalisation'
> issue and it best if civil society takes lead in exploring/ proposing some
> options. In doing so it will help IGF to move forward in its principal
> mandate - that of helping (and if needed nudging forward) global Internet
> policy processes, which includes new institutional  forms, as and when
> needed.
>
> There is going to be  a main session on this theme - our workshop can
> connect to it.
>
> If an early workshop proposal is put by the IGC on the table I expect some
> governmental actors to get also interested.
>
> 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
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/aed2cf93/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From MWong at piercelaw.edu  Tue Mar 24 15:24:09 2009
From: MWong at piercelaw.edu (Mary Wong)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:24:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE7B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>,<0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE7B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <49C8FB19.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>

Lee, thank you for the kind words. I hope our proposal - imperfect
though it is - gets sufficient public support so that the Board will
seriously consider approving it.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 


>>> Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 3/24/2009 7:08 AM >>>
Again, a quick round of (perhaps premature) applause for Bill, Mary and
the others who have obviously worked hard on enabling ICANN to operate
in an open and trasparent manner in at least one corner of its
operations.

I suspect some (of course not McTim) might be objecting to this because
it could show the other constituencies own processes in a comparatively
negative light.

Even the transition to ongoing operations is set up through a much
clearer than usual, well-defined process. Bravo.

Lee


________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Cc: Mary Wong
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

Hi McTim,

I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:

> Hullo Mary,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>
>> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial
>> organizations;
>
> yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
> excluded.

The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that
patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade
associations, investors) and will be represented in other stakeholder
groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme of putting
actors into one stakeholder group and not another is ICANN's, not
ours, and it maps with standard practices in public policymaking
bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many standards
bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of actors per se,
sorry but there's a big world out there that for sound reasons are not
based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of it.  The proposal just
says how the board's model is to be locally implemented by specifying
that the noncommercial users SG is for noncommercial users just as the
commercial users SG is for commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should
be recalled that we do include the possibility of flexibility
regarding orgs and individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not
ineligible due to their own or their organization’s membership in
another GNSO SG or the ccNSO.

If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture
stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced
with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply
different interests will magically emerge through cool technical
reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.
But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework alongside
others would be rather unfair.

> The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.

No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone
has to review and decide on applications, and this is an appropriately
accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided by explicit
charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke filled room,
and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in which someone
with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial rather than one of
the business SGs would be rejected.  And constituency approval is left
to the board, informed by a public comment period.

>>
>> - In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User
>> Constituency
>> (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member
>> (individual
>> or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new
>> NCSG, and no
>> existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new
>> structure.
>
> Except for:
>
> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the
> June 2009 ICANN
> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> terms of the 3
> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until
> June 2010."

Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the
transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in
engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a
time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents
capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just be
beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six plug
and play candidates on the fly.

These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject
the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and
transparent consultation process and continuously revised in
interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is
far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the
table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and
Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these
too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?

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 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090324/100415f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 16:06:52 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:06:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <p0620071ec5ee8f188a5a@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p0620071ec5ee8f188a5a@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
> Bill,
> 
> I wonder if you (or someone else) could address the problem of 
> potential capture.
 
George,
I think I am in a better position to answer this, having spent the last decade laboring in the vineyards (or landfills) of the DNSO/GNSO. 

The most clear and direct protection against "capture" of a Stakeholder Group is the simple fact that these SGs in isolation have, for practical purposes, very little power. 

The entire NCSG will have one quarter of the votes on a Council. This Council does not have all that much power either - it is in the business of creating and chartering Working Groups (WGs). The WGs in turn must achieve some of kind "consensus" on an output before it goes before the Council for approval. 

Given the limited role of a single Stakeholder Group (SG), the most important form of protection against capture comes from making sure that one SG cannot be taken over by (or stacked with hidden agents of) another SG. That would mean protecting against infiltration by Commercial users, or by Registries and Registrars. 

If you read the eligibility requirements of the NCSG charter, you can see that there are clear protections against such infiltration - members of other SGs are ineligible, and membership in the NCSG is mutually exclusive with membership in any other SG. (Note that McTim complained about this, almost certainly innocently, not knowing the implications of allowing cross-membership in the GNSO's delicately balanced structure). 

I can say that in the entire history of the DNSO/GNSO, there have been _a few_ attempts by interest groups to invade or infiltrate the noncommercial constituency. None have been successful, but it is worthwhile to recount these to give some indication of where the threat might come from. First, at the beginning (1999) there was an attempt by representatives of Country code TLDs (ccTLDs) to join and dominate the Noncommercial constituency, even though they already had their own constituency. They claimed they were nonprofit organizations (and indeed, many were). There was also an attempt by registrars (e.g., CORE) to claim that they were nonprofit and also should get a double vote by joining the noncommercial constituency. Those of us involved in forming the Noncommercial constituency and protecting its independence insisted that as suppliers they belonged in the ccTLD or registrar constituencies, respectively. And we politely (well, perhaps not so always so politely) asked them to get out. We were scolded by the likes of Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts for being "exclusionary" but we were of course right and that was that. Indeed, some of the ill-will the NCUC still suffers from dates back to this early attempt to protect itself against "capture."

The second incident is ocurring right now. No need to inflame things further by naming names and going into the details; suffice it to say that certain business interests who are unhappy about losing their 3 to 1 voting advantage in the GNSO would be quite interested in splitting the NCSG into warring factions, one of whose agendas, which might be summarized as "control the Internet in the name of safety" just happens to align comfortably with that of many of the multinational brand holders who dominate the Commercial SG. Such a strategy would allow them to "capture" the user House, although even that would not allow them to capture the GNSO as a whole. 

In short, the threat of capture does not now, and never has come from unrestricted individual membership. It comes from invasions or manipulations from other SGs. Only when SGs combine to form a captured majority of a GNSO Council can it pose a real threat. 

The most persistent and difficult problem faced by the Noncommercial SG is now, and probably always will be the problem of finding volunteers who are crazy enough to devote massive amounts of their time to doing the difficult, uncompensated work that ICANN demands. There is not now, and probably never will be, people standing in line for that function. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> I understand that the voting scheme is to allow large organizations 4 
> votes, small organizations 2 votes and individuals 1 vote.  It seems 
> to me that it would not be difficult to mount a campaign in which a 
> significant number of individuals, all of whom have a legitimate 
> interest in ICANN, could be mobilized to vote for a specific slate of 
> candidates, in effect capturing the new organization.  such a capture 
> could theoretically be engineered by either the current group of 
> leaders, or by another group completely outside the current 
> structure, or anywhere inbetween.
> 
> I understand that the problem of preventing capture is a difficult 
> one.  Our experience with the ICANN direct elections in 2001 proved 
> that beyond a doubt.  so I'm not arguing against the proposal just 
> because the group hasn't definitively solved this intractable 
> problem.  However I really would like to hear opinions regarding the 
> capture issue, because I think it is a real possibility.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> At 9:51 AM +0100 3/24/09, William Drake wrote:
> >Hi McTim,
> >
> >I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.
> >
> >On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:
> >
> >>Hullo Mary,
> >>
> >>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong 
> <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
> >>>
> >>>- Membership is open to both individuals and 
> non-commercial organizations;
> >>
> >>yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
> >>excluded.
> >
> >The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that 
> >patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade 
> >associations, investors) and will be represented in other 
> >stakeholder groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme 
> >of putting actors into one stakeholder group and not another is 
> >ICANN's, not ours, and it maps with standard practices in public 
> >policymaking bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many 
> >standards bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of 
> >actors per se, sorry but there's a big world out there that for 
> >sound reasons are not based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of 
> >it.  The proposal just says how the board's model is to be locally 
> >implemented by specifying that the noncommercial users SG is for 
> >noncommercial users just as the commercial users SG is for 
> >commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should be recalled that we do 
> >include the possibility of flexibility regarding orgs and 
> >individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not ineligible due to 
> >their own or their organization's membership in another GNSO SG or 
> >the ccNSO.
> >
> >If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture 
> >stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced 
> >with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply 
> >different interests will magically emerge through cool technical 
> >reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.  
> >But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework 
> >alongside others would be rather unfair.
> >
> >>The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.
> >
> >No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone 
> >has to review and decide on applications, and this is an 
> >appropriately accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided 
> >by explicit charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke 
> >filled room, and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in 
> >which someone with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial 
> >rather than one of the business SGs would be rejected.  And 
> >constituency approval is left to the board, informed by a public 
> >comment period.
> >
> >>>
> >>>- In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial 
> User Constituency
> >>>(NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC 
> member (individual
> >>>or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join 
> the new NCSG, and no
> >>>existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the 
> new structure.
> >>
> >>Except for:
> >>
> >>" 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the 
> >>June 2009 ICANN
> >>meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> >>terms of the 3
> >>NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until 
> >>June 2010."
> >
> >Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the 
> >transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in 
> >engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a 
> >time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents 
> >capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just 
> >be beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six 
> >plug and play candidates on the fly.
> >
> >These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject 
> >the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and 
> >transparent consultation process and continuously revised in 
> >interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is 
> >far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the 
> >table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and 
> >Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these 
> >too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?
> >
> >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
> ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 16:35:36 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:05:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <49C8CFF4.10209@wzb.eu>
References: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com> 
	<49C8CFF4.10209@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903241335h77da0e4bv2664172784352514@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Betrand de La Chapelle,

Part of the concerns expressed by way of resistence to the new method of
defining workshop themes stem from the fact that the second part of the
workshop process is undefineed and ambiguous.

1. Themes are to be proposed first, to come up with a long list of themes.
This is good. Very good, infact.
2. After themes are proposed, what is the process by which the MAG would
decide on a slot for a Workshop on Security at the cost of a Workshop of
Privacy, for instance?
3. After it is decided to go ahead with one of the two, how would the MAG
decide on the "ownership" of the theme ? Individual  A and Oranization B
both happen to have proposed a workshop on the same theme. Now who owns it?
'Ownership' is a term used to convey the idea that the Workshop 'owner' gets
to have considerable influence in steering the panel speeches and
discussions to proceed in a certain way, and also, to some extent, to reach
a desirable and some cases pre-determined conclusion.

Apparently difficult questions, but if Step 1 can be handled, Steps 2 and 3
can also be handled, but the process for these steps need to be
unambiguously defined. And these steps also need to be openly debated and
transparently decided. Could possibly work if the process for this December
started last June.

After all this one concern would still remain. Though this new process is
more bottom-up in step 1, ironically there is more room for top-down
coordination, (if not for top-down decisions) in steps 2 and 3.

Coordination in essence is desirable and can create better results, but what
are the safeguards that there would be a balance ? I feel that this is the
implied concern.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Parminder and Bertrand's views on the new approach to select
> themes and agendas for workshops. It is an attempt to reduce the number of
> workshops in general and those with overlapping topics in particular. I
> don't think that this approach will increase the power or influence of the
> MAG, not least because the MAG lacks the capacity to micro-manage all
> workshops.
> I see Milton's point that the need to compromise could lead to a watering
> down of topics. However, if we manage to significantly decrease the number
> of workshops, we should gain some space for those (hopefully few) cases
> where workshop organizers are unable to agree on a common agenda. Two
> workshops about related topics would be to the detriment of both workshops
> as they would probably have to put up with a smaller audience.
>
> As Bertrand said, the main point is that this new approach doesn't affect
> the main asset of the IGF, the bottom up method of choosing topcis and
> panelists. Only the "change control" might be shared by more people. The
> overall result could be quite good.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>>  Dear Milton,
>>
>> I did not have time to respond immediately to the concerns you expressed
>> in response to my earlier posting. And certainly did not want it to "freeze
>> people in place" as a result :-)
>>
>> I may have mis-expressed myself or led you to read too much in what I
>> tried to explain. Parminder I think gave some of the elements of answer.
>> This is not a radically new process, just an attempt at improving things
>> progressively.
>>
>> Ginger is doing it exactly the way it is intended and the IGC is likely to
>> provide a very useful contribution by discussing threads.
>>
>> I'll try to clarify a bit here. Because I can assure you that the implicit
>> message is not the one you summarize in your mail below. And this is not an
>> attempt at power grab by the MAG members (should go without saying but
>> always better to say it :-).
>>
>> The fundamental starting points were :
>>
>>    * we are starting this process earlier this year than before : this
>>      is good and gives some time to work more progressively
>>    * preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize
>>      workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively
>>      unconstrained manner is a critical element of the IGF : this
>>      bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably one of the most precious
>>      features of this innovative experiment (it is in my view anyway)
>>    * at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have
>>      fewer events running in parallel, because people are torn and
>>      forced to make difficult choices among things that interest them
>>      given the short duration of the meeting
>>    * finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness"
>>      where it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same
>>      theme, organized by different actors pushing only their own
>>      agenda, and to try and encourage more direct interaction to move
>>      the issue forward; isn't it Hamadoun Touré who likes to say :
>>      "from friction comes light" and I think I remember you are often
>>      the one advocating "real debate" to sort out positions :-)
>>
>>
>> That is the starting point. Hence the proposal to call for expressions of
>> interest on themes rather than full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage
>> (they will naturally come later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of
>> interest on various themes but also allows people who do not intend to
>> organize a workshop themselves to indicate that they think a specific topic
>> should be addressed. This is what I did last year by putting an early
>> placeholder in favor of a workshop on "dimensions of cybersecurity" while
>> indicating that I did not intend to organize it myself.
>>
>> Furthermore, it allows a preliminary debate on the formulation of workshop
>> titles. The discussion on this list on the theme "role of governments in IG"
>> is a perfect example. Instead of having two workshops in parallel, one
>> organized by governments to explain whay they should have more say and the
>> other one by the IGC to explain why CS should have more say, wouldn't it be
>> better to have a single one on the "role of the different stakeholders" ?
>>
>> The IGF is a unique space for dialogue (and/or debate) among people with
>> different viewpoints. It should not result in small groups of like-minded
>> people agreeing among themselves in parallel rooms. The "silo" effect is as
>> bad in IGF as it is in ICANN. Rather than forcing people into "MAG-defined
>> groups", it is just an attempt at facilitating early interaction among
>> people with common issues of interest or concern. And yes, they may have
>> "conflicting views or interests"; but isn't this what the IGF should be
>> about too ?
>>
>> However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of
>> like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should be
>> given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their viewpoint to
>> the community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and the guiding
>> principle in chosing formats and composition of workshops should be what
>> kind of outcomes can be expected.
>>
>> All this is about balance and quality of outcomes. The IGF is
>> progressively structuring and this is only a small step to help it produce
>> better results.
>>
>> In a nutshell, the role of the MAG will not be - and should not be - the
>> one you fear. The MAG is and should remain a facilitator. Ideally, the
>> result of this first call will provide a list of themes and interested
>> actors, allowing proponents to see who else is interested in a given issue,
>> and facilitating them getting together. It is also expected to provide a
>> diversity of formulations for the various issues and choosing the proper
>> formulation is often a first step towards better mutual understanding.
>>
>> I hope this alleviates somewhat your concerns. But I thank you nonetheless
>> for expressing them : it is a good reminder that the best intentions can :
>> 1) be mis-interpreted if they are not correctly explained and 2) present
>> dangers not anticipated if a new procedure is mis-used. A useful cautionary
>> call.
>>
>> Sincere thanks to Ginger for her efforts to create thematic threads that
>> help structure discussion.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:
>> mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>        Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
>>    discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.
>>        My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others)
>> are
>>    basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that
>>    the method of workshop planning and development will be completely
>>    different this year. I am surprised that there has been no response
>>    to my expressed concerns about this, and until there is some
>>    clarification or discussion of those basic parameters, I think it is
>>    unwise to invest time in developing workshops. Indeed, I am not even
>>    sure I would plan to attend the IGF if certain worst-case scenarios
>>    play out.
>>        We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent
>>    program for a workshop and don't line up any people, because
>>    whatever idea you have is going to be treated as a general "theme"
>>    and then thrown into a huge pot and re-sorted into MAG-defined
>>    groups." And those groups may be a bunch of people who hardly know
>>    each other with different, sometimes conflicting agendas. If I am
>>    not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes please
>>    correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response.
>>    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:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>>        <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>>        *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
>>        *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>        *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>>
>>        Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on
>>        this thread.
>>
>>
>>        Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and
>>        application (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
>>
>>
>>        Ginger
>>
>>
>>        Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>>
>>        DiploFoundation
>>
>>        Coordinator IGCBP 09
>>
>>
>>        www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>>
>>        VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ____________________
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
>> Information Society
>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
>> Foreign and European Affairs
>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>
>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
>> Exupéry
>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>>
>>   ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/cc7b4615/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 16:44:16 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:44:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <954259bd0903240315jd185497xa1b6bfa04bb9fa29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A01@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Thanks, Bertrand,

This is a very good explanation. I go through it below with some responses but on the whole it does not sound as bad as I feared. If we can avoid some obvious pitfalls that could emerge from such a process, it should be worth a try. Read on....


 *   preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively unconstrained manner is a critical element of the IGF : this bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably one of the most precious features of this innovative experiment (it is in my view anyway)

And mine....

 *   at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have fewer events running in parallel, because people are torn and forced to make difficult choices among things that interest them given the short duration of the meeting

Ah well, some people need to overcome their Agora-phobia.

 *   finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness" where it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same theme,

Here, despite my half-serious, half-flippant response on the previous point, I am in violent agreement. In general, I _liked_ the proposal to separate themes in terms of their "ripeness/maturity." This could be quite a step forward for the IGF.

It will, however, be quite interesting to see how designations of ripeness or maturity are made.

Perhaps we can learn from the Motion Picture Association, and we can create a special category of "non-threatening, feelgood, immature" content (like "green computing"), give it a "G" rating, and let the kids go....while the adults go to R-rated critical internet resources sessions.

 *   organized by different actors pushing only their own agenda, and to try and encourage more direct interaction to move the issue forward; isn't it Hamadoun Touré who likes to say : "from friction comes light" and I think I remember you are often the one advocating "real debate" to sort out positions :-)

Indeed. This could be excellent, or it could break.

It will be excellent if the MAG members and others involved are not afraid of controversy and not afraid to let real representatives of actual conflicting positions be represented. (Unfortunately that has not always been my experience of MAG and IGF programming.)
It will fail if certain people insist, as they have repeatedly, on downplaying controversies, pretending they don't exist, attempting to stifle those who air them, etc. So the success or failure of this method will hinge on how this is handled.

That is the starting point. Hence the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to organize it myself.

One thing to bear in mind: you have significantly lowered the costs of proposing a theme. In other words, people in my network could easily propose a dozen viable and interesting themes, even though we only have the capacity to produce/participate in 3 or 4. So, if you follow this route, be prepared to be inundated with "theme" proposals, and be prepared for the risk that serious proposers with serious ideas might be drowned out by the noise of hundreds of casual proposers with superficial or half-baked ideas.

How will you sort them? Or will this be handled bottom up, via self organization? I hope the latter!

Furthermore, it allows a preliminary debate on the formulation of workshop titles. The discussion on this list on the theme "role of governments in IG" is a perfect example. Instead of having two workshops in parallel, one organized by governments to explain whay they should have more say and the other one by the IGC to explain why CS should have more say, wouldn't it be better to have a single one on the "role of the different stakeholders" ?

Maybe. Certainly any WS on any topic should include all stakeholder groups. But what if one group wants to have a general discussion of stakeholder roles, and the other wants to focus on the more narrow context of how governments fit into ICANN? If I were in the position of proposing a WS on that topic, I would strongly prefer to place it in a more concrete context (i.e., ICANN/JPA, GAC) because then we actually know what we are talking about, and what reforms might come from it, rather than having a general and philosophical discussion. However, I would not be opposed to letting other people talk in more general terms.

The IGF is a unique space for dialogue (and/or debate) among people with different viewpoints. It should not result in small groups of like-minded people agreeing among themselves in parallel rooms.  The "silo" effect is as bad in IGF as it is in ICANN. Rather than forcing people into "MAG-defined groups", it is just an attempt at facilitating early interaction among people with common issues of interest or concern. And yes, they may have "conflicting views or interests"; but isn't this what the IGF should be about too ?

Here we are in complete agreement! The trick is to preserve the diverse viewpoints when you merge themes into one. The danger is that we will homogenize rather than bring the divergent viewpoints into the same room for strategic interactions. It will not be easy, but I completely agree it needs to be done.

When I referred to "conflicting agendas" in my original message, I was not referring to different policy views. I was referring to people with incompatible notions of what a Workshop should cover. e.g., if one person wants to link talk about censorship threats to discussions of child protection and another wants to pretend that child protection measures should never be burdened with concerns about censorship, you have a problem, unless both parties understand clearly that the whole point of the WS is to bring those two together.

The MAG needs to make it clear that this method is motivated by an ethic of encouraging dialogue among disagreeing viewpoints, and that efforts to exclude viewpoints that are not liked by one group, or to appoint biased moderators or unbalanced panels (e.g., putting 5 representatives of ICANN, RIRs, etc on a panel with one token "critic") will not be tolerated.

However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should be given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their viewpoint to the community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and the guiding principle in chosing formats and composition of workshops should be what kind of outcomes can be expected.

Great. this is reassuring. An escape valve in cases where the new model does not work.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/34cec971/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 16:54:28 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:54:28 -0400
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop
In-Reply-To: <49C88E77.4050402@itforchange.net>
References: <49C88E77.4050402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A02@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


Just now I see Parminder's response, which is even more reassuring, as Parminder is on the MAG. Let me express agreement strongly with these objectives:

(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than less

(2) get different viewpoints and positions together at the same place rather than different rooms, which again I know you do, in general, support.

Not much to add to these comments, except to allow them to be repeated so that people will read it again:

On the other hand, the MAG filter can rather be used to discourage and remove proposals, that have what you recognise as the key problem in the workshops space - in your  words, workshops 'that were thrown together at the last minute with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder mixes".

Your fear that the MAG process may be used to make 'Workshops become bland and meaningless' is very important to keep in mind.  You mention two, related, aspects to this problem. In both cases I support your position strongly and we should do out best through IGC interventions and presence in MAG to make sure that MAG's processes in selecting and advising mergers is informed of these positions.

These are indeed my main concerns. Good that you understand them so well (but then you have been on the receiving end...)

(1) The problem that many in the IGF arena have a (very) active position against certain discussions (and not just certain positions) is endemic, and needs to be constantly engaged with, and its impact minimized.

Yes!

(2) A related problem, as shown by your IPv6 example, is that, if one is not able to stop certain important global policy discussion through obstructing at the agenda setting level, it is then done by mixing 'capacity building' and implementation issues when core policy issues may be sought to be discussed. As you argue, just because the general name/space of an issue - IPv6, connectivity, CIRs etc -  may be same or shared,  it doesn't  mean that  we can keep bringing very different  'aspects' of the issue together in the same discussion, which just obstructs meaningful discussions.

Yes! This is a very important distinction and you have articulated it even better than I did. Note that one need not attribute nefarious motives to anyone for this problem to arise. But it will arise if we group people solely on the basis of "workshop titles."

If the IGF can somehow find a way across the above two problems, we would then have made a huge move forward and be ready to discuss some real global Internet policy issues which is the IGF's primary mandate to discuss. At present, I can only say that this is a political struggle and we keep trying our best.

 OK!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/909c674c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 17:00:47 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:00:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903240331g5f86d76dq3cc48b813519cbd4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
	 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
	 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <954259bd0903240331g5f86d76dq3cc48b813519cbd4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> As 180 or so Heads of State or Government have explicitly
> endorsed the multi-stakeholder approach in the WSIS documents,
> the question is not "whether" it should be pursued but "how" this
> should function. And a part of it is unchartered territory.

Unfortunately, 180 heads of state also declared that public policy making is the sole and exclusive responsibility of states.

But let's not launch a whole thread at that stage.

Launching a thread is difficult. Threads are long and soft and it is hard to push them anywhere.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/6a7c6ef8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 17:00:59 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:00:59 +0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <49C8FB19.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2>
	 <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE7B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <49C8FB19.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
Message-ID: <701af9f70903241400h1163247boc7fedf81bc1b9869@mail.gmail.com>

Is there a proposal for who from which country should be invited to
participate in the proposal? For example, many of the people that join
ICANN activities in a lot of cases are from the private sector with
minimal participation from the CS. Sometimes not having a clear
understanding and criteria for joining is the issue.

Many members to the ICANN do represent non-commercial stakeholders
like Associations and Alliances but at the end of the day those
alliances are comprises of private sector and commercial entities.

A good process would be to propose that IGC members that are willing
to participate in such a proposal be invited to forward their
nominations for the formulation of the initial group to the process
and similarly to other well trust NCSGs around the globe.

Just my two cents.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:
> Lee, thank you for the kind words. I hope our proposal - imperfect though it
> is - gets sufficient public support so that the Board will seriously
> consider approving it.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>>>> Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 3/24/2009 7:08 AM >>>
> Again, a quick round of (perhaps premature) applause for Bill, Mary and the
> others who have obviously worked hard on enabling ICANN to operate in an
> open and trasparent manner in at least one corner of its operations.
>
> I suspect some (of course not McTim) might be objecting to this because it
> could show the other constituencies own processes in a comparatively
> negative light.
>
> Even the transition to ongoing operations is set up through a much clearer
> than usual, well-defined process. Bravo.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> Cc: Mary Wong
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
>
> Hi McTim,
>
> I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>> Hullo Mary,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>>
>>> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial
>>> organizations;
>>
>> yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
>> excluded.
>
> The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that
> patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade
> associations, investors) and will be represented in other stakeholder
> groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme of putting
> actors into one stakeholder group and not another is ICANN's, not
> ours, and it maps with standard practices in public policymaking
> bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many standards
> bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of actors per se,
> sorry but there's a big world out there that for sound reasons are not
> based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of it.  The proposal just
> says how the board's model is to be locally implemented by specifying
> that the noncommercial users SG is for noncommercial users just as the
> commercial users SG is for commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should
> be recalled that we do include the possibility of flexibility
> regarding orgs and individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not
> ineligible due to their own or their organization’s membership in
> another GNSO SG or the ccNSO.
>
> If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture
> stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced
> with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply
> different interests will magically emerge through cool technical
> reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.
> But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework alongside
> others would be rather unfair.
>
>> The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.
>
> No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone
> has to review and decide on applications, and this is an appropriately
> accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided by explicit
> charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke filled room,
> and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in which someone
> with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial rather than one of
> the business SGs would be rejected.  And constituency approval is left
> to the board, informed by a public comment period.
>
>>>
>>> - In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User
>>> Constituency
>>> (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member
>>> (individual
>>> or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new
>>> NCSG, and no
>>> existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new
>>> structure.
>>
>> Except for:
>>
>> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the
>> June 2009 ICANN
>> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
>> terms of the 3
>> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until
>> June 2010."
>
> Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the
> transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in
> engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a
> time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents
> capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just be
> beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six plug
> and play candidates on the fly.
>
> These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject
> the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and
> transparent consultation process and continuously revised in
> interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is
> far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the
> table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and
> Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these
> too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?
>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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  Tue Mar 24 17:02:58 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:02:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I am sooooo in agreement with Bill here. Like, totally...

________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
who had a rather restrictive vision of the relationship between state and society.  Hence, from the standpoint of promoting multistakeholderism et al, I can't help wondering whether re-fetishizing these artificial categories and trying to specify how they apply in different issue spaces, stages etc would really be such a constructive activity...?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/39eee7ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 17:05:38 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:05:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread
In-Reply-To: <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net>
References: <CEB1B8B6F888425A852E5C06386BB5C2@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Yes, yes, yes. I like that formulation. Would love to be on such a panel. This must be "agree with Parminder Day."

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


In fact so interesting, that I think we should have a workshop on this issue alone. 'NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any case it is always better to have more focussed issues for workshops.

I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that such-and-such NN regulation is necessary to be observed by the concerned actors, would that not set the default global regime for NN. Do developing countries - even a relatively larger and more powerful one  like India - have any serious options but to accept the default regime.

What NN issues extend across the global Internet, or are likely to so extend? What accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt by a globally democratic system - and if there isnt one at present, the problems that such a situation presents.

Discussing NN in terms of global Internet policy will be in accordance of the central mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue forum for global Internet policy issues. parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/8eee85cb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 17:10:58 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:10:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Except for:
> >
> > " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the  
> > June 2009 ICANN
> > meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> > terms of the 3
> > NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will 
> run until  
> > June 2010."
> 
> Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the  
> transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in  
> engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a  
> time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents  
> capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will 
> just be beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with 
> six plug and play candidates on the fly.

The other thing Bill doesn't mention is that Bill, Mary and Carlos were elected only in November, and their first ICANN meeting was in March. The idea of roping them into this process, which they are just learning to cope with, and then making the NCSG throw out their hard won learning curve and start over again after 6-8 months is crazy. The standard term for Councilors is 2-3 years. 

I cannot overemphasize the complexity and time commitments involved in being on the GNSO Council and performing well on it, nor my gratitude to those who volunteered to do it. 

--MM

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Mar 24 17:12:29 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:12:29 +1100
Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <9D7452267D1A4F0A838A1D967EE708DC@IAN>

I just heard that today is the 40th anniversary of the original John
Lennon/Yoko Ono love-in. Obviously the good vibes have spread to our
discussions here!

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: 25 March 2009 08:06
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Parminder'
Subject: RE: [governance] NN Workshop Thread

 

Yes, yes, yes. I like that formulation. Would love to be on such a panel.
This must be "agree with Parminder Day." 

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

 

In fact so interesting, that I think we should have a workshop on this issue
alone. 'NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any case it is always
better to have more focussed issues for workshops.

I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that such-and-such NN
regulation is necessary to be observed by the concerned actors, would that
not set the default global regime for NN. Do developing countries - even a
relatively larger and more powerful one  like India - have any serious
options but to accept the default regime. 

What NN issues extend across the global Internet, or are likely to so
extend? What accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt by a globally
democratic system - and if there isnt one at present, the problems that such
a situation presents. 

Discussing NN in terms of global Internet policy will be in accordance of
the central mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue forum for global
Internet policy issues. parminder 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/33404970/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Mar 24 18:00:59 2009
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:00:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu> <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com> <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <9D8DF62C-CBA7-43FC-A176-D823B927C760@ipjustice.org>

Milton is right to mention how burdensome the work of a GNSO  
Councilor is at ICANN and I also appreciate those individuals such as  
Mary, Bill, Carlos I-II, Norbert, and others who have been willing to  
donate their time to the thankless job of representing non-commercial  
users in Internet policy negotiations at ICANN.

Given the march on ICANN in recent months of the crusaders of content  
regulation, there has never been a better time for both individuals  
and organizations who care about a free and open Internet to get  
involved in civil society policy discussions at ICANN.

Frankly, we very much need your help.  Most people who are devoted to  
Internet policy from the civil society perspective rarely show up at  
ICANN meetings or participate in ICANN discussion forums.  This  
vacuum has left the door wide open for a small vocal and organized  
extremist viewpoint to take hold at ICANN in recent months.

There are many opportunities for participation at ICANN, including  
participating on issue-specific working groups, drafting teams, and  
other committees looking into or recommending policy choices to the  
ICANN Board.  If civil society really started to join in the ICANN  
policy negotiations, I'm sure we'd have a much different, much better  
ICANN, and thus a better Internet.

Below is a membership application for non-commercial organizations  
and individuals should anyone would care to fill one out and send it  
to me to join the noncommercial users constituency at ICANN.  I hope  
you will consider joining and contributing whatever amount of energy  
you can spare.  You would be most welcome.

Thank you!
Robin


_____________________________________________________________

For organizations:

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION for NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS
ICANN GNSO Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)

To: 	NCUC Secretariat
	c/o IP Justice, San Francisco, CA USA
	rgross at ipjustice.org

Please provide the following information and send it to the address  
above, preferably in electronic form by email. For details and  
questions, please refer to the NCUC charter at http://www.ncdnhc.org/ 
current_charter.htm  first.

A) Organisation Details
Name of the Organization:

Name of the Director:

Domain Name of the Organization:

Mailing Address of the Organization:

Email address of the organization:


B) Representatives

We designate the following person as our official representative in  
NCUC:
Name:

Telephone Number:

E-mail address:

We designate the following person as our alternate representative in  
NCUC:
Name:

Telephone Number:

E-mail address:


C) Type of membership

  ___	Small Organization (under 1000 members or under 200 employees /  
dues: US$ 50 for two years)

  ___	Large Organization (1000 or more members or 200 or more  
employees / dues: US$100 for two years)

  ___	Request for membership fee waiver. As requested, we attach our  
budget details and explanation
	Membership dues must arrive to enable membership rights unless the  
Executive Committee issues a waiver.

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

For Individuals:

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP IN THE NCUC

Thank you for your interest in joining the Noncommercial Users  
Constituency!
Until July 2008, NCUC was limited to noncommercial organizations. At  
the Paris
meeting we decided to experiment with opening up to individual users  
who are
interested in the public interest aspects of ICANN policy.

Until we formally modify our charter, individuals who join through  
this route
do not have voting rights. They will be added to our discussion list  
and will
also be able to participate in all other aspects of our activities.  
We hope to
approve the modification of our charter this Fall (October or  
November) and
allow individual members to vote after that.

Please fill out the form below.

==========================================

Name:


Postal address:


email address for adding to the NCUC-discuss list:


retype email address:


Please tell us which of the following three eligibility categories  
applies to you:

a) I am an individual who has registered domain names for personal,  
family or noncommercial use;

b) I am an individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with  
the public interest
aspects of domain name policy, and I am not represented in ICANN  
through membership in
another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group;

c) I am employed by or a member of a large noncommercial  
organizations (universities,
colleges, large NGOs) and it is too complicated or I lack the  
standing to get my
organization to join on an organizational basis.

Check the one that applies best to you:

a) ___

b) ___

c) ___


I agree to advocate a non-commercial, public-interest position within  
the constituency.

AGREE____      DISAGREE____


Return this text as an email to NCUC Chair, Robin Gross,  
rgross at ipjustice.org

We will evaluate your application and get back to you soon.

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



On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Except for:
>>>
>>> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the
>>> June 2009 ICANN
>>> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
>>> terms of the 3
>>> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will
>> run until
>>> June 2010."
>>
>> Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the
>> transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in
>> engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a
>> time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents
>> capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will
>> just be beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with
>> six plug and play candidates on the fly.
>
> The other thing Bill doesn't mention is that Bill, Mary and Carlos  
> were elected only in November, and their first ICANN meeting was in  
> March. The idea of roping them into this process, which they are  
> just learning to cope with, and then making the NCSG throw out  
> their hard won learning curve and start over again after 6-8 months  
> is crazy. The standard term for Councilors is 2-3 years.
>
> I cannot overemphasize the complexity and time commitments involved  
> in being on the GNSO Council and performing well on it, nor my  
> gratitude to those who volunteered to do it.
>
> --MM
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/23912973/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Tue Mar 24 18:46:37 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:46:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fora
References: <OFC67B9BBC.4B080272-ONC1257582.00407899-C1257582.0042F922@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <61B2F6B6-ACBF-4DE6-B22F-5D5E1176A9DC@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

Interesting that the former Cluster of WSIS-related eventS is now:
(1) renamed "THE WSIS Forum" (http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/ 
2009/forum/index.html), and
(2) designed and shaped in an IGF-like way (http://www.itu.int/wsis/ 
implementation/2009/forum/docs/draft-agenda.pdf). There is even an  
opening and a closing ceremony.

On the other hand, the IGF themes and format have, since 2006,  
evolved in such a way that they are closer to the WSIS follow-up  
action lines discussions.

Given that we're approaching the time to "examine the desirability of  
the continuation of the [IG]Forum", one might wonder what would  
happen next, especially when the ITU Secretary General declares  
(ICANN Cairo meeting, Nov. 2008):
"Coming back to what we do with ICANN, we also participate actively  
in the work of Internet Governance Forum, which was established as  
the result of the multistakeholder deliberations at the WSIS. I  
personally believe that the IGF is just going around and around,  
avoiding the topics, and becomes sometimes a waste of time. We need  
to address issues frankly and try to solve them. And that's why I  
thought I should be here to talk to you here, so that we learn to  
know each other better. Next year, ITU will organize the World Policy  
Forum, which addresses a number of Internet-related public-policy  
issues, ranging from cybersecurity and data protection to  
multilingualism and the ongoing development of Internet."

The ITU World Telecom Policy Forum (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/ 
wtpf2009/about.html) will be held on 21-24 April 2009, just one month  
before THE WSIS Forum. This year, one WTPF main theme is  
"convergence, including internet-related public policy matters".  
Excerpt: "The crux of today’s Internet governance debate centres on  
resource management, and in particular on the management of top level  
domains, the allocation of IP addresses – and the regulations  
stipulating who defines their associated rules."

Sounds like, while the IGF is beating around the bush for 3 years  
now, the ITU is dribbling its way through. What about a convergence  
between the WTP Forum and the WSIS Forum? What would happen to the IG  
Forum, then?

Best,
Meryem

--
Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 01:00:24 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:00:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2>
	 <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Robin Gross <Robin at imaginelaw.com> wrote:

> Please fill out the form below.
> ==========================================
> Name: McTim
>
> Postal address: Postal mail not possible
>
> email address for adding to the NCUC-discuss list:  mctim at bushnet.net
>
> retype email address: mctim at bushnet.net
>
> Please tell us which of the following three eligibility categories applies
> to you:
> a) I am an individual who has registered domain names for personal, family
> or noncommercial use;
> b) I am an individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the
> public interest
> aspects of domain name policy, and I am not represented in ICANN through
> membership in
> another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group;
> c) I am employed by or a member of a large noncommercial organizations
> (universities,
> colleges, large NGOs) and it is too complicated or I lack the standing to
> get my
> organization to join on an organizational basis.
> Check the one that applies best to you:
> a) _x__
> b) ___
> c) ___
>

In the interests of full disclosure, I am on a number of ICANN mailing
lists already, including At-Large, AfRALO, and AfrICANN, although I am
not a member of a RALO (as far as I know).  In addition, I am active
in various IETF and RIR policy fora, volunteer occasionally for
AfriNIC events and sometimes get paid to give advice and training to
ISPs who are also LIRs.

Does this make me "represented in ICANN through  membership in another
Supporting Organization"  ??

I just don't know.  If someone wanted to keep me off the NCSG, they
could claim I was represented by the ASO, which wouldn't be entirely
untrue, but wouldn't be entirely accurate either.

I think you can now see where my opposition to the proposed rules of
membership arise.  I may be a corner case, but then again, I may be
just the kind of person you are trying to attract!

> I agree to advocate a non-commercial, public-interest position within the
> constituency.
> AGREE__x__      DISAGREE___
>
> Return this text as an email to NCUC Chair, Robin Gross,
> rgross at ipjustice.org
> We will evaluate your application and get back to you soon.

I look forward to your reply.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Mar 25 04:16:42 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:16:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu> <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com> <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com> <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>

McT
>
> In the interests of full disclosure, I am on a number of ICANN mailing
> lists already, including At-Large, AfRALO, and AfrICANN, although I am
> not a member of a RALO (as far as I know).  In addition, I am active
> in various IETF and RIR policy fora, volunteer occasionally for
> AfriNIC events and sometimes get paid to give advice and training to
> ISPs who are also LIRs.

>
> Does this make me "represented in ICANN through  membership in another
> Supporting Organization"  ??
>
> I just don't know.  If someone wanted to keep me off the NCSG, they
> could claim I was represented by the ASO, which wouldn't be entirely
> untrue, but wouldn't be entirely accurate either.

GNSO has a constituency representation system that's unique now and  
will remain so after restructuring.  In the GNSO context it's pretty  
clear if you are a "member" elsewhere who's "represented."  The other  
ASOs are different.  You're not on the Address Council and I assume  
you're not on the ccNSO.  Being on open to all mailing lists that  
provide input to these would not constitute being a represented  
member, at least my understanding.  Maybe someone else from NCUC has a  
different and more restrictive view, in which case you'd be right that  
the language on this point could use further clarification.

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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed Mar 25 04:46:04 2009
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:46:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A01@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


Dear all

I agree very much on Milton¹s rationale for putting up themes (as stated
below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best
position to organize them.

I¹ll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and because
they haven¹t re-emerged:
        1) the future of labour in internet governance. That¹s a theme that
hasn¹t emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention to
labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism,
individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is
especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i
am not a trade unionist....

        2) the internet rights or a human rights based internet issue...
That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have
disappeared...

        3) media and information literacy/education in the information
society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global
policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but
also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities,
sustainable development....

Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...

Divina Frau-Meigs

Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :

>> the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than
>> full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come
>> later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes
>> but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to
>> indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I
>> did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on
>> "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to
>> organize it myself.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/46ca06d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 08:30:15 2009
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:30:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
	 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
	 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com>

Wow, Milton, one day you are "violently in agreement" with me, the next one,
"soooo in agreement" with Bill. What's happening to you ??? :-) Just
kidding....

By the way, Bill has a point in what he says below - but it's not in
contradiction with what I was saying. Nobody should be in favor of
"re-fetishizing artificial categories". As Wolfgang says, it's about how the
different actors interact and share responsibilities, not how to separate
them.

Best

B.



On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  I am sooooo in agreement with Bill here. Like, totally...
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> who had a rather restrictive vision of the relationship between state and
> society.  Hence, from the standpoint of promoting multistakeholderism et al,
> I can't help wondering whether re-fetishizing these artificial categories
> and trying to specify how they apply in different issue spaces, stages etc
> would really be such a constructive activity...?
>
>
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/a4930069/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From lisa at global-partners.co.uk  Wed Mar 25 09:28:07 2009
From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:28:07 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
References: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi Divina and all
 
Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights' workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!
 
Thanks,
Lisa Horner

________________________________

From: Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
Cc: Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes



Dear all

I agree very much on Milton's rationale for putting up themes (as stated below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best position to organize them.

I'll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and because they haven't re-emerged:
        1) the future of labour in internet governance. That's a theme that hasn't emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention to labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism, individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i am not a trade unionist....

        2) the internet rights or a human rights based internet issue... That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have disappeared...

        3) media and information literacy/education in the information society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities, sustainable development....

Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...

Divina Frau-Meigs

Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :



		the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than  full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come  later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to  organize it myself. 
		



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/03be5564/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 09:32:36 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:32:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com> <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net> <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com> <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <292FF87E-EF97-452F-912B-94FFB5ECE16B@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Wow, Milton, one day you are "violently in agreement" with me, the  
> next one, "soooo in agreement" with Bill. What's happening to  
> you ??? :-) Just kidding....

And he agreed with Parminder, and McTim.  And then there was this  
insight,

On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Launching a thread is difficult. Threads are long and soft and it is  
> hard to push them anywhere.

Maybe Ian's right, and Milton was celebrating the Ono/Lennon love in  
anniversary in one of those Delft 'cafes' with the interesting  
aroma...wearing Paisley, presumably.

Perhaps a scaleable solution to list contention...?

BD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/d8aaebcd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 09:44:58 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:44:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <292FF87E-EF97-452F-912B-94FFB5ECE16B@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com> <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net> <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com> <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com> <292FF87E-EF97-452F-912B-94FFB5ECE16B@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <49CA355A.1080800@wzb.eu>





> 
> Maybe Ian's right, and Milton was celebrating the Ono/Lennon love in 
> anniversary in one of those Delft 'cafes' with the interesting 
> aroma...wearing Paisley, presumably.
> 
> Perhaps a scaleable solution to list contention...?

You could try selling the vital components as a package with a picture 
of a softened Milton as a wrapper :-)
jeanette
> 
> BD
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 11:16:31 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:16:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <49CA355A.1080800@wzb.eu>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN>
 <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com>
 <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net>
 <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com>
 <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com>
 <292FF87E-EF97-452F-912B-94FFB5ECE16B@graduateinstitute.ch>,<49CA355A.1080800@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DE99@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

But Milton's here in sunny Syracuse I believe - must be a natural springtime high after another of our infamous winters.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:44 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG

>
> Maybe Ian's right, and Milton was celebrating the Ono/Lennon love in
> anniversary in one of those Delft 'cafes' with the interesting
> aroma...wearing Paisley, presumably.
>
> Perhaps a scaleable solution to list contention...?

You could try selling the vital components as a package with a picture
of a softened Milton as a wrapper :-)
jeanette
>
> BD
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 12:13:30 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
 ICANN NCSG
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization.

We specifically support the proposal because:
 * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants;
 * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
 * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
 * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus

We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation.

We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.

Signed,

--

--


Etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/8f3aa438/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 12:25:08 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:25:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


I would say that unless McT is the organizational representative of an RIR member, or works for an RIR, he would be eligible for NCSG under the individual membership category. 

Recently, our eligibility requirements were clarified specifically so as to NOT exclude anyone in a RALO or ALAC. Also, it is not mailing list membership that matters, but some kind of formal membership in an ICANN S.O. or constituency. 

Keep in mind that the competing NCSG proposal has the same eligibility requirements. The difference is that it fragments people into different constituencies that compete for Council seats. So in that sense I still think you'd be better off supporting our proposal.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:17 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> Cc: Robin Gross
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
> 
> McT
> >
> > In the interests of full disclosure, I am on a number of ICANN mailing
> > lists already, including At-Large, AfRALO, and AfrICANN, although I am
> > not a member of a RALO (as far as I know).  In addition, I am active
> > in various IETF and RIR policy fora, volunteer occasionally for
> > AfriNIC events and sometimes get paid to give advice and training to
> > ISPs who are also LIRs.
> 
> >
> > Does this make me "represented in ICANN through  membership in another
> > Supporting Organization"  ??
> >
> > I just don't know.  If someone wanted to keep me off the NCSG, they
> > could claim I was represented by the ASO, which wouldn't be entirely
> > untrue, but wouldn't be entirely accurate either.
> 
> GNSO has a constituency representation system that's unique now and
> will remain so after restructuring.  In the GNSO context it's pretty
> clear if you are a "member" elsewhere who's "represented."  The other
> ASOs are different.  You're not on the Address Council and I assume
> you're not on the ccNSO.  Being on open to all mailing lists that
> provide input to these would not constitute being a represented
> member, at least my understanding.  Maybe someone else from NCUC has a
> different and more restrictive view, in which case you'd be right that
> the language on this point could use further clarification.
> 
> 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 email at hakik.org  Wed Mar 25 12:52:13 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:52:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Online educational techniques
In-Reply-To: <26E80D18D0764262A1895CA47F8C8839@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <26E80D18D0764262A1895CA47F8C8839@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <20090325165230.1E7B8A6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Learning is one of the element of knowledge acquisition through the 
Internet, and many of the DCs are lagging behind in terms of adopting 
online learning techniques due to parameters that are solvable or may 
be discussed further to reduce the barrier. Still interested to carry 
along this aspect through a submission on collaborative learning or 
on-line learning techniques and technologies.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 06:18 PM 3/22/2009, Ginger Paque wrote:
>Please post your interest and ideas on a workshop on online 
>educational techniques on this thread.
>
>Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital 
>education (Ginger)
>
>I would be interested in your segment on online educational 
>techniques, especially focusing DC. If opportunity exists may submit 
>a proposal. Thanking you.
>Hakikur Rahman <mailto:email at hakik.org>email at hakik.org
>
>
>Ginger
>
>Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>DiploFoundation
>Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
><http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/ddc8a14c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Mar 25 12:54:09 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:54:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <20090325165427.914306781B@smtp1.electricembers.net>

In addition to other responses, I will be pleased to participate in 
this thread on the issue of IG at the local government level.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 06:18 PM 3/22/2009, Ginger Paque wrote:
>Please post your interest and ideas for a workshop on the role of 
>government in IG on this thread.
>Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>I think a WS on the role of Government in IG is useful for the IGF, 
>and for civil society to be the initiators. I see echoes of this 
>theme in current discussions of G7-G20, discussions of ICANN-GAC, 
>discussions of different actions of national governments, forum shopping, etc.
>Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>This would spark an interesting discussion, indeed. But please do not
>equate "Internet Governance" with "ICANN" and only talk about the MAG and
>the JPA. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>Ginger
>
>Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>DiploFoundation
>Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
><http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/e696ea94/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 13:06:14 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:06:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop on the role of Government in IG
In-Reply-To: <49CA355A.1080800@wzb.eu>
References: <B6C5DB19043F4DB4AB27A1CA0C35FE58@GINGERLAPTOP> <A528258E1D964456BE94ED85858A7359@IAN> <fecfce260903230826p15716a71v2f8b5950e67043a9@mail.gmail.com> <49C89EE0.80409@itforchange.net> <954259bd0903240218j3662a962uaec395237a62d676@mail.gmail.com> <CE235379-D63D-471C-A1FF-D44657CB4D66@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0903250530r4b26e286u14dbb9d5fd357207@mail.gmail.com> <292FF87E-EF97-452F-912B-94FFB5ECE16B@graduateinstitute.ch> <49CA355A.1080800@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <E674A9E9-2758-48E0-8470-9C76DAB217F3@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe Ian's right, and Milton was celebrating the Ono/Lennon love  
>> in anniversary in one of those Delft 'cafes' with the interesting  
>> aroma...wearing Paisley, presumably.
>> Perhaps a scaleable solution to list contention...?
>
> You could try selling the vital components as a package with a  
> picture of a softened Milton as a wrapper :-)
> jeanette
>>

Spoken like a true ex-commune-ist, je. All hail (G.) Marx and (J.)  
Lennon.  And Zig Zag.

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming..

Sounds like there's broad agreement among the few who've spoken to the  
ws "theme", but more views needed...

BD

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

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


From robin at ipjustice.org  Wed Mar 25 13:11:25 2009
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:11:25 -0700
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5D32@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903212216q71c5e2ffs8656c8363b0ed25a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619EF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <p06240817c5ed4b157bf0@192.168.1.2> <49C7E47B.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu> <f65fb55e0903232236i3c0ea37bma3be4420f2524ef1@mail.gmail.com> <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com> <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com> <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>

I agree with Milton and Bill and see no reason why McTim would not  
qualify as an individual member based on those affiliations (except  
of course if he works for a RIR).

I'll forward the the application to the NCUC Executive Committee, so  
it should be approved within a few days.

Thanks, McTim, for submitting the membership application!

NCUC is not a life-time commitment, and we will happily accept  
whatever amount of energy you've got to spare, even small amounts are  
very welcome.

There is also a web-form membership application so people can fill- 
out the membership application and apply via the web:
     https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform? 
hl=en&formkey=cElmeG5pOWZ6dmxoVVAwMEItTjZ2TWc6MA

Thanks again!
Robin



On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> I would say that unless McT is the organizational representative of  
> an RIR member, or works for an RIR, he would be eligible for NCSG  
> under the individual membership category.
>
> Recently, our eligibility requirements were clarified specifically  
> so as to NOT exclude anyone in a RALO or ALAC. Also, it is not  
> mailing list membership that matters, but some kind of formal  
> membership in an ICANN S.O. or constituency.
>
> Keep in mind that the competing NCSG proposal has the same  
> eligibility requirements. The difference is that it fragments  
> people into different constituencies that compete for Council  
> seats. So in that sense I still think you'd be better off  
> supporting our proposal.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:17 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
>> Cc: Robin Gross
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
>>
>> McT
>>>
>>> In the interests of full disclosure, I am on a number of ICANN  
>>> mailing
>>> lists already, including At-Large, AfRALO, and AfrICANN, although  
>>> I am
>>> not a member of a RALO (as far as I know).  In addition, I am active
>>> in various IETF and RIR policy fora, volunteer occasionally for
>>> AfriNIC events and sometimes get paid to give advice and training to
>>> ISPs who are also LIRs.
>>
>>>
>>> Does this make me "represented in ICANN through  membership in  
>>> another
>>> Supporting Organization"  ??
>>>
>>> I just don't know.  If someone wanted to keep me off the NCSG, they
>>> could claim I was represented by the ASO, which wouldn't be entirely
>>> untrue, but wouldn't be entirely accurate either.
>>
>> GNSO has a constituency representation system that's unique now and
>> will remain so after restructuring.  In the GNSO context it's pretty
>> clear if you are a "member" elsewhere who's "represented."  The other
>> ASOs are different.  You're not on the Address Council and I assume
>> you're not on the ccNSO.  Being on open to all mailing lists that
>> provide input to these would not constitute being a represented
>> member, at least my understanding.  Maybe someone else from NCUC  
>> has a
>> different and more restrictive view, in which case you'd be right  
>> that
>> the language on this point could use further clarification.
>>
>> 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




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/7a639724/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 13:14:10 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:44:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Online educational techniques
In-Reply-To: <20090325165230.1E7B8A6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <26E80D18D0764262A1895CA47F8C8839@GINGERLAPTOP> 
	<20090325165230.1E7B8A6C48@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903251014y174dae25v7440437e422c205e@mail.gmail.com>

This is a good workshop theme, and can focus on ways by which Internet could
be used to provide an overall upliftment to education worldwide. If
effective techniques could be developed, peopele in a remote village can get
almost the same quality of education as those who go to the finerst
universities in the world.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Hakikur Rahman <email at hakik.org> wrote:

> Learning is one of the element of knowledge acquisition through the
> Internet, and many of the DCs are lagging behind in terms of adopting online
> learning techniques due to parameters that are solvable or may be discussed
> further to reduce the barrier. Still interested to carry along this aspect
> through a submission on collaborative learning or on-line learning
> techniques and technologies.
>
> Best regards,
> Hakik
>
>
> At 06:18 PM 3/22/2009, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>  Please post your interest and ideas on a workshop on online educational
> techniques on this thread.
>
> Online educational techniques perhaps with the DC for digital education
> (Ginger)
>
> I would be interested in your segment on online educational techniques,
> especially focusing DC. If opportunity exists may submit a proposal.
> Thanking you.
> Hakikur Rahman email at hakik.org
>
>
> Ginger
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
> DiploFoundation
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090325/cc808316/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 14:12:40 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:42:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903251112u465e7e55oe778806dafadf2d3@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Lisa Horner,

Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments
of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain
content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the
recent past and now.

Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and
to censor inappropriate content ????

What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance"
any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the
agreed values and principles ???

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  Hi Divina and all
>
> Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on
> "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building
> discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for
> internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association
> with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on
> progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights'
> workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa Horner
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
> *Sent:* Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
> *Cc:* Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop
> themes
>
>
> Dear all
>
> I agree very much on Milton’s rationale for putting up themes (as stated
> below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best
> position to organize them.
>
> I’ll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and
> because they haven’t re-emerged:
>         1) the future of *labour *in internet governance. That’s a theme
> that hasn’t emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention
> to labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism,
> individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is
> especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i
> am not a trade unionist....
>
>         2) the internet *rights* or a human rights based internet issue...
> That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have
> disappeared...
>
>         3) media and information l*iteracy*/education in the information
> society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global
> policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but
> also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities,
> sustainable development....
>
> Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...
>
> Divina Frau-Meigs
>
> Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :
>
>  the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than
>  full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come
>  later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various
> themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop
> themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be
> addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in
> favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that
> I did not intend to  organize it myself.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090325/b37ae2bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 15:39:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:39:51 +1100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
 ICANN NCSG
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>

Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.

 

I'll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
disagreement I can't see why this can't be a statement from the Caucus as a
whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would change some of the
wording at the top to simply "The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to
express our support" (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)

 

 

Anyway sign me up!

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN
NCSG

 

 

The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to
express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
(NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While
there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic
principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most
effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names
Supporting Organization. 

 

We specifically support the proposal because:

 * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by
relevant ICANN participants;

 * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids
fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies
with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; 

 * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require
individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may
not correspond to their interests and needs;

 * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based
Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead
offering them a chance to build consensus

 

We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a
specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global,
geographically diverse representation. 

 

We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge
you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.

 

Signed,

 

--

 

--

 

 

Etc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/3fefa13e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 17:48:20 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:48:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of names on a list, especially if countries of residence and organizational affiliation are shown. 
Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the caucus members? 
________________________________________
From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG

Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.

I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)


Anyway sign me up!



Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com



________________________________
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG


The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization.

We specifically support the proposal because:
 * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants;
 * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
 * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
 * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus

We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation.

We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.

Signed,

--

--


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 gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 18:23:26 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:53:26 -0430
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
 ICANN NCSG
In-Reply-To: <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
Message-ID: <EB26BA9A3C204EED9B81F81770319EEE@GINGERLAPTOP>

I agree with Ian. Thanks.

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Marzo de 2009 03:10 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'
Asunto: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
ICANN NCSG

 

Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.

 

I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the Caucus as a
whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would change some of the
wording at the top to simply “The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to
express our support” (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)

 

 

Anyway sign me up!

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN
NCSG

 

 

The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to
express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
(NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While
there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic
principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most
effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names
Supporting Organization. 

 

We specifically support the proposal because:

 * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by
relevant ICANN participants;

 * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids
fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies
with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; 

 * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require
individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may
not correspond to their interests and needs;

 * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based
Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead
offering them a chance to build consensus

 

We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a
specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global,
geographically diverse representation. 

 

We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge
you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.

 

Signed,

 

--

 

--

 

 

Etc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090325/40e7a854/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu Mar 26 00:59:58 2009
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:59:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <EB26BA9A3C204EED9B81F81770319EEE@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <C5F0CA5E.88CC%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Sign me up too, Milton.

Divina


Divina Frau-Meigs
Professor,  media sociology,  Université Sorbonne nouvelle
Director, master pro "ingénierie de la formation à distance et de
l'éducation aux médias"
Board member, ECREA  (European Communication Research and Education
Association)
Past vice-president, IAMCR (International Association for Media and
Communication Research)
wwww.medias-matrices.net




Le 25/03/09 23:23, « Ginger Paque » <gpaque at gmail.com> a écrit :

> I agree with Ian. Thanks.
>  
> 
> Ginger
>  
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
> DiploFoundation
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>  
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Marzo de 2009 03:10 p.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'
> Asunto: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
> ICANN NCSG
>  
> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>  
> I¹ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong disagreement
> I can¹t see why this can¹t be a statement from the Caucus as a whole, rather
> than just members who sign on. That would change some of the wording at the
> top to simply ³The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express our support²
> (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)
>  
>  
> Anyway sign me up!
>  
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> PO Box 429
> 
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> 
> Australia
> 
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> 
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN
> NCSG
>  
>  
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants
> in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our
> support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter
> developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be
> room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil
> society representation in ICANN¹s Generic Names Supporting Organization.
>  
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by
> relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids
> fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies
> with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require
> individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not
> correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working
> Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering
> them a chance to build consensus
>  
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a
> specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global,
> geographically diverse representation.
>  
> We appreciate ICANN¹s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you
> to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>  
> Signed,
>  
> --
>  
> --
>  
>  
> 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/6edf4a86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 03:04:51 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:04:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4D621A13-E42E-4133-ABB4-7A2DB0D30E81@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of  
> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and  
> organizational affiliation are shown.
> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the  
> caucus members?

This seems like the ideal approach, multiple names/org affiliations  
would be useful.  But there may be folks who would prefer not to  
endorse for whatever reason, so I would think we can't just list  
everyone without either an opt in or opt out...

BD

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 05:46:21 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:46:21 +0500
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <701af9f70903260246w1eea3f52h3f822a05b381ee81@mail.gmail.com>

I am in too!

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of names on a list, especially if countries of residence and organizational affiliation are shown.
> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the caucus members?
> ________________________________________
> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>
> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)
>
>
> Anyway sign me up!
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
>
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization.
>
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>
> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
> Signed,
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
> 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 Yrjo.Lansipuro at formin.fi  Thu Mar 26 06:36:20 2009
From: Yrjo.Lansipuro at formin.fi (Lansipuro Yrjo)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:36:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?
In-Reply-To: <8017791e0903230743h5f1fbb5ayfdcbf3f1ee38844e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6B74788707E643CFBF36CAF6C2B5C482@GINGERLAPTOP> <8017791e0903230743h5f1fbb5ayfdcbf3f1ee38844e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F487440F4DC4E4499A8D5E39F7704273065C5442@hels08.mfa.uhnet.fi>

Dear Ginger, dear all
 
I didn't have the chance to attend  workshop #86 in Hyderabad, but it appears from the comprehensive report 
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/356-workshop-youth-and-internet-governance-challenges-for-future
that at that workshop, a  lot of good ideas were presented, and they should be continue to be built on in Sharm el-Sheik. However, the discussion should not only be on the youth and for the youth, but also by the youth.  Young internet users (however defined age-wise) from various countries should be - to the largest extent possible -  in charge of the problem-defining, agenda-setting and planning of the workshop, using electronic collaboration tools. We should make sure that  the challenges and opportunities of Web 2.0 are seen and dealt with from the standpoint of young users themselves, rather than just by well-meaning adults.
 
 
Best,
 
Yrjö Länsipuro
 
 



________________________________

	From: kabani.asif at gmail.com [mailto:kabani.asif at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kabani
	Sent: 23. maaliskuuta 2009 16:43
	To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
	Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?
	
	
	Ginger,
	 
	Just to update on the subject, Ms. Iffat from Pakistan was also working on the Youth and she also hosted workshop in IGF India, kindly note the update, further more will be added by Iffat (Rose) as she will this email.
	 
	 
	With Best Regards
	 
	 
	Sincerely
	 
	 
	Asif Kabani
	
	
	2009/3/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
	

		At the OC meetings there was a lot of interest in including youth in the IGF process. Rafik Dammak and Mariela Maciel have been working on this issue with several other interested groups (Government ofFinland, India and Egypt Youth). Please post your ideas and interest in a workshop on youth and IG on this thread.

		 

		Ginger

		 

		Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

		DiploFoundation

		Coordinator IGCBP 09

		 

		www.diplomacy.edu/ig

		VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

		 


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




	-- 
	Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/fb939c7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 06:48:06 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:18:06 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?
In-Reply-To: <F487440F4DC4E4499A8D5E39F7704273065C5442@hels08.mfa.uhnet.fi>
References: <6B74788707E643CFBF36CAF6C2B5C482@GINGERLAPTOP> <8017791e0903230743h5f1fbb5ayfdcbf3f1ee38844e@mail.gmail.com> <F487440F4DC4E4499A8D5E39F7704273065C5442@hels08.mfa.uhnet.fi>
Message-ID: <39C92AC78D6D4C55837892A5184C22EB@GINGERLAPTOP>

Hello,

Definitely!!! There is no doubt whatsoever that you are correct. I don’t
recall if the report mentions it, but that workshop was organized completely
by biological youth :-). I have copied two of the people involved, Rafik
Dammak and Marilia Maciel, in case you are interested in communicating about
possibilities for IGF 2009.

 

Thanks for your interest. I encourage you to get involved in the
organization.

 

Best,

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

  _____  

De: Lansipuro Yrjo [mailto:Yrjo.Lansipuro at formin.fi] 
Enviado el: Jueves, 26 de Marzo de 2009 06:06 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kabani; Ginger Paque
CC: Kultamaa Mervi; Moisander Juuso
Asunto: RE: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?

 

Dear Ginger, dear all

 

I didn't have the chance to attend  workshop #86 in Hyderabad, but it
appears from the comprehensive report 

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72
-workshops/356-workshop-youth-and-internet-governance-challenges-for-future

that at that workshop, a  lot of good ideas were presented, and they should
be continue to be built on in Sharm el-Sheik. However, the discussion should
not only be on the youth and for the youth, but also by the youth.  Young
internet users (however defined age-wise) from various countries should be -
to the largest extent possible -  in charge of the problem-defining,
agenda-setting and planning of the workshop, using electronic collaboration
tools. We should make sure that  the challenges and opportunities of Web 2.0
are seen and dealt with from the standpoint of young users themselves,
rather than just by well-meaning adults.

 

 

Best,

 

Yrjö Länsipuro

 

 

 


  _____  


From: kabani.asif at gmail.com [mailto:kabani.asif at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Kabani
Sent: 23. maaliskuuta 2009 16:43
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on youth and IG?

Ginger,

 

Just to update on the subject, Ms. Iffat from Pakistan was also working on
the Youth and she also hosted workshop in IGF India, kindly note the update,
further more will be added by Iffat (Rose) as she will this email.

 

 

With Best Regards

 

 

Sincerely

 

 

Asif Kabani

2009/3/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

At the OC meetings there was a lot of interest in including youth in the IGF
process. Rafik Dammak and Mariela Maciel have been working on this issue
with several other interested groups (Government ofFinland, India and Egypt
Youth). Please post your ideas and interest in a workshop on youth and IG on
this thread.

 

Ginger

 

Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque

DiploFoundation

Coordinator IGCBP 09

 

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu

 


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

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




-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/30ada4aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From email at hakik.org  Thu Mar 26 06:48:48 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:48:48 +0000
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
In-Reply-To: <C5F0CA5E.88CC%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <EB26BA9A3C204EED9B81F81770319EEE@GINGERLAPTOP>
 <C5F0CA5E.88CC%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <20090326104907.6DD6EE1A2A@smtp3.electricembers.net>

You may please add me, too.

Kind regards,
Hakik

Dr. Hakikur Rahman
Chairman
SchoolNet Foundation, Bangladesh, and
Post Doctoral Fellow
University of Minho, Portugal.


At 04:59 AM 3/26/2009, Divina MEIGS wrote:
>Sign me up too, Milton.
>
>Divina
>
>
>Divina Frau-Meigs
>Professor,  media sociology,  Université Sorbonne nouvelle
>Director, master pro "ingénierie de la formation 
>à distance et de l'éducation aux médias"
>Board member, ECREA  (European Communication 
>Research and Education Association)
>Past vice-president, IAMCR (International 
>Association for Media and Communication Research)
>wwww.medias-matrices.net
>
>
>
>
>Le 25/03/09 23:23, « Ginger Paque » <gpaque at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>I agree with Ian. Thanks.
>
>
>Ginger
>
>Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>DiploFoundation
>Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>----------
>De: Ian Peter [<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]>mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Marzo de 2009 03:10 p.m.
>Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'
>Asunto: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a 
>sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
>Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>
>I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but 
>unless there is strong disagreement I can’t see 
>why this can’t be a statement from the Caucus as 
>a whole, rather than just members who sign on. 
>That would change some of the wording at the top 
>to simply “The Internet Governance Caucus wishes 
>to express our support” (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)
>
>
>Anyway sign me up!
>
>
>
>Ian Peter
>
>PO Box 429
>
>Bangalow NSW 2479
>
>Australia
>
>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
>www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Milton L Mueller [<mailto:mueller at syr.edu]>mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
>To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
>Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a 
>sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
>
>The organizations and individuals listed below 
>are members of and participants in the civil 
>society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to 
>express our support for version 6.0 of the 
>Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter 
>developed by the Noncommercial Users 
>Constituency. While there may still be room for 
>minor improvements, we believe that the basic 
>principles on which the charter is founded 
>provide the fairest and most effective basis for 
>civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization.
>
>We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many 
> opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or 
> affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of 
> noncommercial stakeholders into independent 
> constituencies with separate mailing lists, 
> administrative structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG 
> and does not require individuals to fit 
> themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories 
> that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority 
> viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, 
> but does not rigidly assign votes to small 
> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>
>We also note that the alternative charter 
>proposal seems designed to give a specific 
>faction guaranteed Council seats and does not 
>foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>
>We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO 
>more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
>Signed,
>
>--
>
>--
>
>
>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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090326/7272edae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Mar 26 07:45:20 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:45:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5EFB3665-918F-495D-BB92-B70FFDA30B18@ras.eu.org>

Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list  
signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual  
signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a  
whole if there is consensus on this.
Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they  
explicitely sign up.
Meryem

Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of  
> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and  
> organizational affiliation are shown.
> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the  
> caucus members?
> ________________________________________
> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC  
> statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>
> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong  
> disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the  
> Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would  
> change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet  
> Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a  
> phrase on who the Caucus is)
>
>
> Anyway sign me up!
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement  
> re: ICANN NCSG
>
>
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and  
> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We  
> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial  
> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial  
> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor  
> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the  
> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for  
> civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting  
> Organization.
>
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for  
> input by relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but  
> avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent  
> constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative  
> structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not  
> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined  
> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus- 
> based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small  
> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed  
> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not  
> foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>
> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative  
> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
> Signed,
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
> 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

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 08:56:45 2009
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:56:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0903260556laf4a879rae9391590b4e6b8c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mueller,

you can add me, ok to sign

Baudouin

2009/3/25 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

>
>
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to
> express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While
> there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic
> principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most
> effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names
> Supporting Organization.
>
>
>
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by
> relevant ICANN participants;
>
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids
> fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies
> with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
>
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require
> individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may
> not correspond to their interests and needs;
>
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based
> Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead
> offering them a chance to build consensus
>
>
>
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a
> specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global,
> geographically diverse representation.
>
>
>
> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge
> you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/74321bf5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 09:34:58 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:34:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260903251112u465e7e55oe778806dafadf2d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
 <fecfce260903251112u465e7e55oe778806dafadf2d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people have rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they are held and exercised to secure rights for people.

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



Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the recent past and now.

Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and to censor inappropriate content ????

What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance" any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the agreed values and principles ???


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/e8a53199/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk  Thu Mar 26 09:47:30 2009
From: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:47:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

Governments have only one right to sovereignty ­ I think this is important
in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a workshop theme could
include the governments¹ sovereignty as opposed to the non-sovereign state
of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could be used as a good starting point
for the discussion.

Konstantinos


On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people have
> rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they are held
> and exercised to secure rights for people.
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>  
> 
>>  
>> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
>> Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?   Governments
>> of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand  certain
>> content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the
>> recent past and now.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter,  and
>> to censor inappropriate content ????
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance"
>> any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the
>> agreed  values and principles ???
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/50473362/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 09:51:46 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:51:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <5841C31B-B0E8-4A04-84E9-BD041185273E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Uh, hasn't there been several hundred years of international law  
recognizing sovereigns' rights in all kinds of spheres...?  Don't  
treaties recognize rights, like all the time?

Bit puzzled,

BD

On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is  
> important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a  
> workshop theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as opposed  
> to the non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could  
> be used as a good starting point for the discussion.
>
> Konstantinos
>
>
> On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people  
>> have rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just,  
>> they are held and exercised to secure rights for people.
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>> ------------------------------
>> Internet Governance Project:
>> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights  
>>> of  Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the  
>>> Users?   Governments of the world might want to argue that they  
>>> have a right to demand  certain content removed - You Tube has  
>>> faced such rights based requests in the  recent past and now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to  
>>> filter,  and to censor inappropriate content ????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet  
>>> governance"  any way? Define rights, principles and then enact  
>>> laws according to the agreed  values and principles ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Lecturer in Law,
> GigaNet Membership Chair,
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Lord Hope Building,
> 141 St. James Road,
> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/991032b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 10:50:04 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:20:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <5841C31B-B0E8-4A04-84E9-BD041185273E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk> <5841C31B-B0E8-4A04-84E9-BD041185273E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903260750odb18b48g43d17ef38af1a0d9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello William Drake,

Not only treaties recognize sovereign rights, but "right" is a word both
appropriately and loosely used for Governments.

One, In a message (Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM) in the NN Squad list with
the thread "China Shoots Self in Foot With Apparent YouTube Censorship
Attempt" featuring the link    http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000526.html
Lauren Weinstein of NN Squad says this:
> .... Google deploys regional blocking.....While I understand why Google
must respond to >*RIGHTS-BAED TAKE DOWN REQUESTS*, the bottom line is that
........ [capitllization and emphasis mine]

This is an example to show that it is not uncommon to talk about 'rights' of
Governments.

Two, Irrespective of whether Milton calls it "rights" or "powers" , it would
come up in any discussion on User's rights. Either it will come up as User's
rights Vs Regulator's rights or User's Rights Vs Regulator's Powers or even
as User's Rights Vs User's Obligations.,

In a different context Bertrand deLa Chapelle quoted Hamadoun Toure "from
Friction comes light" .  In this case can we handle the intensity of the
friction that this argument on "Rights" or a "Rights based approach" to
Internet Governance would generate ?

An alternative way of championing the same cause would be to talk about
"fundamnentals" rather than "rights". There are moves underway in various
corners of business and governments, apparently in isolated bits and pieces,
to erode the fundamental character of the Internet. The coalitions and
coalition leaders could take us this central cause of defining the core
vlaues of Internet and if they do, the whole world would come together to
champion the cause.

This is what I feel as an individual and as an user.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:21 PM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> Uh, hasn't there been several hundred years of international law
> recognizing sovereigns' rights in all kinds of spheres...?  Don't treaties
> recognize rights, like all the time?
> Bit puzzled,
>
> BD
>
>   On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>
>   Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is
> important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a workshop
> theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as opposed to the
> non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could be used as a
> good starting point for the discussion.
>
> Konstantinos
>
>
> On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>
> Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people have
> rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they are held
> and exercised to secure rights for people.
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
>  Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?   Governments
> of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand  certain
> content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the
>  recent past and now.
>
>
>
> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter,
>  and to censor inappropriate content ????
>
>
>
> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance"
>  any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the
> agreed  values and principles ???
>
>
> [Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Lecturer in Law,
> GigaNet Membership Chair,
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Lord Hope Building,
> 141 St. James Road,
> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>     ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>  New book: *Governing Global Electronic Networks,*
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/3c57d86e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Mar 26 11:10:24 2009
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:10:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <AC44DD02-EE3D-4BE4-BDF2-49D5234ADC39@ras.eu.org>

Not sure to which extent this isn't a language problem: the  
sovereignty is not a capacity of governments, but of States, with the  
exclusive right to exercize a political authority within a given  
territory and on a given group of people.
In any case, sovereignty shouldn't be dealt with as a 'right', at  
least not in the same way as human rights, since it defines the  
independence of a State vis a vis other States (non intervention) ...  
provided that this State is recognized by the others.
This sovereignty (more and more) finds some limitations: (partial)  
delegation to supra-national entities (e.g.: EU), recognition of some  
interference rights (e.g. by belonging to the UN or other  
international organizations), etc. Sovereignty may also be de facto  
limited by multinational companies, and other private entities, in a  
globalized world.
The Internet is of course a special case, and the IGC held an  
interesting workshop at IGF 2008 on related matters ("The  
Transboundary Internet : Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty"). I  
doubt the ccTLDs could be a good example, since they don't really  
raise any sovereignty issue. Far more interesting, with this respect,  
are issues like filtering and net neutrality.
Meryem


Le 26 mars 09 à 14:47, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit :

> Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is  
> important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a  
> workshop theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as  
> opposed to the non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of  
> ccTLDs could be used as a good starting point for the discussion.
>
> Konstantinos
>
>
> On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only  
>> people have rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified  
>> and just, they are held and exercised to secure rights for people.
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>> ------------------------------
>> Internet Governance Project:
>> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights  
>>> of  Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the  
>>> Users?   Governments of the world might want to argue that they  
>>> have a right to demand  certain content removed - You Tube has  
>>> faced such rights based requests in the  recent past and now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to  
>>> filter,  and to censor inappropriate content ????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet  
>>> governance"  any way? Define rights, principles and then enact  
>>> laws according to the agreed  values and principles ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Lecturer in Law,
> GigaNet Membership Chair,
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Lord Hope Building,
> 141 St. James Road,
> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 11:14:49 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:44:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Internet's Core Values.
Message-ID: <fecfce260903260814x1e14c0eelef567ef0d753deab@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

(not worded as a proposal)

Internet is an Internet-work of people. To quote what I heard from someone
from Latin America at the at-Large summit at Mexio, "Behind every computer
is a beating heart".

Intenet as it emerged has connected users across the globe and has caused
tremendous positive changes in our lives. It is the core values of Internet
that has made it possible for all this to happen. Without these core values,
the world would be a different place to live in.

Changes in the way Internet works will change the way we live.

If we can propose a workshop to define and declare the Internet's Core
Values, the presentations and debates would raise and answer the following
questions:

What is Internet?
What are the essentail characteristics, principles and values of the
Internet?  ( freedom of expression, open standards, shared ownership or
non-ownership?, unregualted? controlled? loosely co-ordinated?
community-administered? people-managed? unmanaged? , end to end,
non-intermeidated? uncensored? global, unified...  I am not making
an accurate or exhaustive list as that is what the workshop is set to try to
achieve.

A definition of the fundamental values would then become a "Declaration of
the Internet" ???

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090326/6db8fc19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 11:37:37 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:07:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <AC44DD02-EE3D-4BE4-BDF2-49D5234ADC39@ras.eu.org>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk> <AC44DD02-EE3D-4BE4-BDF2-49D5234ADC39@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903260837m44f7d17fg7e4430811df12467@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Meryem,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>wrote:

> Not sure to which extent this isn't a language problem: the sovereignty is
> not a capacity of governments, but of States, with the exclusive right to
> exercize a political authority within a given territory and on a given group
> of people.
> In any case, sovereignty shouldn't be dealt with as a 'right', at least not
> in the same way as human rights, since it defines the independence of a
> State vis a vis other States (non intervention) ...


Here  "Independance" is often misinterpreted by nationalistic myopia
possibly as:

Independance of China via a vis the rest of the world (with respect to
Internet traffic) ???
Independance of Australia or India or Canada from interference from external
content, opinions and views flowing through the Internet??


> The Internet is of course a special case, and the IGC held an interesting
> workshop at IGF 2008 on related matters ("The Transboundary Internet :
> Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty").


That is what needs to be exmpahized...

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.

>
> Meryem
>
>
> Le 26 mars 09 à 14:47, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit :
>
>   Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is
>> important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a workshop
>> theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as opposed to the
>> non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could be used as a
>> good starting point for the discussion.
>>
>> Konstantinos
>>
>>
>> On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people have
>>> rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they are held
>>> and exercised to secure rights for people.
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Internet Governance Project:
>>> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
>>>>  Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?   Governments
>>>> of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand  certain
>>>> content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the
>>>>  recent past and now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter,
>>>>  and to censor inappropriate content ????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet
>>>> governance"  any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws
>>>> according to the agreed  values and principles ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>> Lecturer in Law,
>> GigaNet Membership Chair,
>> University of Strathclyde,
>> The Lord Hope Building,
>> 141 St. James Road,
>> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
>> UK
>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090326/e3435892/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From MWong at piercelaw.edu  Thu Mar 26 12:28:25 2009
From: MWong at piercelaw.edu (Mary Wong)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:28:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: the "rights" issue
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260903260837m44f7d17fg7e4430811df12467@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
 <AC44DD02-EE3D-4BE4-BDF2-49D5234ADC39@ras.eu.org>
 <fecfce260903260837m44f7d17fg7e4430811df12467@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49CB74EA.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>

At the risk of devolving into a pedantic law professor, I'm jumping into
this discussion... 
 
The word "rights" not only has several aspects and meanings, it's also
often used as an interchangeable or overlapping term for concepts such
as "powers", "privileges" and "liberties" (each of which also suffers to
some extent from imprecision.) There are, for example, legal rights and
(versus) natural/moral rights, individual and collective (group) rights,
etc.
 
Where governments are concerned, we need to distinguish between a
"state" and a "government" (and perhaps also a "nation" or "nation
state"), and between a state's sovereignty (and the autonomy and rights
that accompany that status) vis-a-vis other states, and its ability
(power) and corresponding duty to act towards its citizens.
 
I'm not sure that we're all using the word "rights" in the same sense,
and I think it would be awkward to use the same word to describe both
the kind of fundamental guarantees many of us would like to see in
relation to Internet users as well as the legal and factual powers of
governments.
 
As such, themes or titles along the lines of something like "User
Rights on the Internet: Citizens & Governments, Individuals & States"
might be more appropriate (though admittedly perhaps less of a "sexy"
clarion call.)
 
Just a thought,
Mary
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 


>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com> 3/26/2009 11:37 AM
>>>
Hello Meryem,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
wrote:


Not sure to which extent this isn't a language problem: the sovereignty
is not a capacity of governments, but of States, with the exclusive
right to exercize a political authority within a given territory and on
a given group of people.
In any case, sovereignty shouldn't be dealt with as a 'right', at least
not in the same way as human rights, since it defines the independence
of a State vis a vis other States (non intervention) ... 
Here "Independance" is often misinterpreted by nationalistic myopia
possibly as:
Independance of China via a vis the rest of the world (with respect to
Internet traffic) ???
Independance of Australia or India or Canada from interference from
external content, opinions and views flowing through the Internet??


The Internet is of course a special case, and the IGC held an
interesting workshop at IGF 2008 on related matters ("The Transboundary
Internet : Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty"). 
That is what needs to be exmpahized...
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.



Meryem


Le 26 mars 09 à 14:47, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit :



Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is
important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a
workshop theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as opposed to
the non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could be
used as a good starting point for the discussion.

Konstantinos


On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:



Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people
have rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they
are held and exercised to secure rights for people.
Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org ( http://internetgovernance.org/ )
<http://internetgovernance.org/>





Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?
Governments of the world might want to argue that they have a right to
demand certain content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based
requests in the recent past and now.



Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter,
and to censor inappropriate content ????



What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet
governance" any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws
according to the agreed values and principles ???





-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090326/c69c35fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 12:38:26 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:38:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <5841C31B-B0E8-4A04-84E9-BD041185273E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C5F137F2.5D19%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>,<5841C31B-B0E8-4A04-84E9-BD041185273E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DEA5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

oops, Milton forgot ; )
________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Konstantinos Komaitis
Cc: Milton L Mueller; 'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes

Uh, hasn't there been several hundred years of international law recognizing sovereigns' rights in all kinds of spheres...?  Don't treaties recognize rights, like all the time?

Bit puzzled,

BD

On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

Governments have only one right to sovereignty – I think this is important in the context of the international Internet. Perhaps a workshop theme could include the governments’ sovereignty as opposed to the non-sovereign state of the Internet. The case of ccTLDs could be used as a good starting point for the discussion.

Konstantinos


On 26/03/2009 13:34, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

Governments do not have any "rights;" they have powers. Only people have rights. Insofar as governmental powers are justified and just, they are held and exercised to secure rights for people.
Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>



Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of  Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?   Governments of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand  certain content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the  recent past and now.



Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter,  and to censor inappropriate content ????



What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance"  any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the agreed  values and principles ???





--
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<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>
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Mar 26 12:52:40 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:52:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <5EFB3665-918F-495D-BB92-B70FFDA30B18@ras.eu.org>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<5EFB3665-918F-495D-BB92-B70FFDA30B18@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DEA7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Meryem's suggested approach, for maximum impact on ICANN's conisderation of this, both the collective of IGC member and folks in their individual capacities and affiliations should be listed - with their consent of course.

(sign me up too)

Lee
________________________________________
From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:45 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:

Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list
signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual
signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a
whole if there is consensus on this.
Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they
explicitely sign up.
Meryem

Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of
> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and
> organizational affiliation are shown.
> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the
> caucus members?
> ________________________________________
> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC
> statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>
> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
> disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the
> Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would
> change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet
> Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a
> phrase on who the Caucus is)
>
>
> Anyway sign me up!
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> re: ICANN NCSG
>
>
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We
> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial
> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial
> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor
> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for
> civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
> Organization.
>
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for
> input by relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but
> avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent
> constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative
> structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not
> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined
> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-
> based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small
> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed
> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not
> foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>
> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative
> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
> Signed,
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
> 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

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 15:13:09 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:13:09 +1100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DEA7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <E0D28853AF1C41A4AB2C0AC864007C0E@IAN>

That seems to be the best way forward.

So if you want to be individually listed, just sign up here (many others
have) Include your country and organizational affiliation.

And if you have strong concerns list them here as well, that would determine
whether IGC as such is a signatory or not

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: 27 March 2009 03:53
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
> 
> I agree with Meryem's suggested approach, for maximum impact on ICANN's
> conisderation of this, both the collective of IGC member and folks in
> their individual capacities and affiliations should be listed - with their
> consent of course.
> 
> (sign me up too)
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:45 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
> 
> Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list
> signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual
> signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a
> whole if there is consensus on this.
> Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they
> explicitely sign up.
> Meryem
> 
> Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> 
> > That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of
> > names on a list, especially if countries of residence and
> > organizational affiliation are shown.
> > Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the
> > caucus members?
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC
> > statement re: ICANN NCSG
> >
> > Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
> >
> > I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
> > disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the
> > Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would
> > change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet
> > Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a
> > phrase on who the Caucus is)
> >
> >
> > Anyway sign me up!
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > PO Box 429
> >
> > Bangalow NSW 2479
> >
> > Australia
> >
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> >
> > www.ianpeter.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> > Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> > re: ICANN NCSG
> >
> >
> > The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
> > participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We
> > wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial
> > Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial
> > Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor
> > improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
> > charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for
> > civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
> > Organization.
> >
> > We specifically support the proposal because:
> >  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for
> > input by relevant ICANN participants;
> >  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but
> > avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent
> > constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative
> > structures and representatives;
> >  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not
> > require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined
> > categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
> >  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-
> > based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small
> > factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
> >
> > We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed
> > to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not
> > foster global, geographically diverse representation.
> >
> > We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative
> > and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
> >
> > Signed,
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 15:23:27 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:23:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <E0D28853AF1C41A4AB2C0AC864007C0E@IAN>
References: <E0D28853AF1C41A4AB2C0AC864007C0E@IAN>
Message-ID: <49CBD62F.4010700@wzb.eu>

Do we really need to handle this via the mailing list? It creates a lot 
of traffic...
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> That seems to be the best way forward.
> 
> So if you want to be individually listed, just sign up here (many others
> have) Include your country and organizational affiliation.
> 
> And if you have strong concerns list them here as well, that would determine
> whether IGC as such is a signatory or not
> 
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>  
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
>> Sent: 27 March 2009 03:53
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
>>
>> I agree with Meryem's suggested approach, for maximum impact on ICANN's
>> conisderation of this, both the collective of IGC member and folks in
>> their individual capacities and affiliations should be listed - with their
>> consent of course.
>>
>> (sign me up too)
>>
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:45 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
>>
>> Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list
>> signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual
>> signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a
>> whole if there is consensus on this.
>> Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they
>> explicitely sign up.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>>
>>> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of
>>> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and
>>> organizational affiliation are shown.
>>> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the
>>> caucus members?
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC
>>> statement re: ICANN NCSG
>>>
>>> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>>>
>>> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
>>> disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the
>>> Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would
>>> change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet
>>> Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a
>>> phrase on who the Caucus is)
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway sign me up!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>> PO Box 429
>>>
>>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>>>
>>> Australia
>>>
>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>>
>>> www.ianpeter.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
>>> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
>>> re: ICANN NCSG
>>>
>>>
>>> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
>>> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We
>>> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial
>>> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial
>>> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor
>>> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
>>> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for
>>> civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
>>> Organization.
>>>
>>> We specifically support the proposal because:
>>>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for
>>> input by relevant ICANN participants;
>>>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but
>>> avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent
>>> constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative
>>> structures and representatives;
>>>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not
>>> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined
>>> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>>>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-
>>> based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small
>>> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>>>
>>> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed
>>> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not
>>> foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>>>
>>> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative
>>> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 15:30:00 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:30:00 +1100
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <49CBD62F.4010700@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <EA6F63D43D0645F4857076A1269E1E3E@IAN>

True - Milton, are you happy to collect individual signatories off list? -
in which case this topic can be for amendments or for disagreement with IGC
signing on.



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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: 27 March 2009 06:23
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'Lee W McKnight'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
> 
> Do we really need to handle this via the mailing list? It creates a lot
> of traffic...
> jeanette
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
> > That seems to be the best way forward.
> >
> > So if you want to be individually listed, just sign up here (many others
> > have) Include your country and organizational affiliation.
> >
> > And if you have strong concerns list them here as well, that would
> determine
> > whether IGC as such is a signatory or not
> >
> > Ian Peter
> > PO Box 429
> > Bangalow NSW 2479
> > Australia
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> > www.ianpeter.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> >> Sent: 27 March 2009 03:53
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> re:
> >>
> >> I agree with Meryem's suggested approach, for maximum impact on ICANN's
> >> conisderation of this, both the collective of IGC member and folks in
> >> their individual capacities and affiliations should be listed - with
> their
> >> consent of course.
> >>
> >> (sign me up too)
> >>
> >> Lee
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> re:
> >>
> >> Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list
> >> signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual
> >> signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a
> >> whole if there is consensus on this.
> >> Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they
> >> explicitely sign up.
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> >>
> >>> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of
> >>> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and
> >>> organizational affiliation are shown.
> >>> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the
> >>> caucus members?
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC
> >>> statement re: ICANN NCSG
> >>>
> >>> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
> >>>
> >>> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
> >>> disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the
> >>> Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would
> >>> change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet
> >>> Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a
> >>> phrase on who the Caucus is)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway sign me up!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ian Peter
> >>>
> >>> PO Box 429
> >>>
> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479
> >>>
> >>> Australia
> >>>
> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> >>>
> >>> www.ianpeter.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> >>> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> >>> re: ICANN NCSG
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
> >>> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We
> >>> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial
> >>> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial
> >>> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor
> >>> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
> >>> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for
> >>> civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
> >>> Organization.
> >>>
> >>> We specifically support the proposal because:
> >>>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for
> >>> input by relevant ICANN participants;
> >>>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but
> >>> avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent
> >>> constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative
> >>> structures and representatives;
> >>>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not
> >>> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined
> >>> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
> >>>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-
> >>> based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small
> >>> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
> >>>
> >>> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed
> >>> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not
> >>> foster global, geographically diverse representation.
> >>>
> >>> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative
> >>> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
> >>>
> >>> Signed,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 17:32:47 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:32:47 +1100
Subject: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper  for
 comments by april 24
Message-ID: <2B48409847214156B06D5240C8E99C68@IAN>

A draft program paper for Sharm El Sheikh has been published at
www.intgovforum.org <http://www.intgovforum.org/> . Comments are called for
by April 24 for a synthesis paper.

 

There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging issues
has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the statement

 

 

"While some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a
cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established
definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at
the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. "

 

Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this.
Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme should
not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and principles
should not be discussed??

 

 

 

Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible IGC
response by April 24.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090327/2815818c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 26 18:55:29 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:55:29 +1100
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper  for
 comments by april 13
Message-ID: <790782FA289D40B4B41D1156486BA6E0@IAN>

Just noticed the deadline is actually April 13 - hence this repost

 

Ian 

 

  _____  

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: 27 March 2009 08:33
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: 'Max Senges'
Subject: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for comments
by april 24

 

A draft program paper for Sharm El Sheikh has been published at
www.intgovforum.org <http://www.intgovforum.org/> . Comments are called for
by April 24 for a synthesis paper.

 

There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging issues
has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the statement

 

 

"While some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a
cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established
definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at
the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. "

 

Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this.
Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme should
not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and principles
should not be discussed??

 

 

 

Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible IGC
response by April 24.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090327/3c2929ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090327/3c2929ce/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 19:14:37 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:14:37 +0500
Subject: [governance] Technology Consumer Rights in Pakistan? Is it a
 reality with TGP?
Message-ID: <701af9f70903261614j269948b7of76a99515ac25db3@mail.gmail.com>

This post is a good example of the Technology/Telecom Consumer Rights
Movement emerging in Pakistan written by myself:
Technology Consumer Rights in Pakistan? Is it a reality with TGP?:
http://tinyurl.com/tgprconumerrights

-- 

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 01:18:49 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:18:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
	 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>
	 <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com>
	 <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On 3/26/09, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Hi McTim,
>
> ICANN's structure is divided into various groupings, intended to balance
> responsibility and power between different sectors.
>
> NCUC is part of the GNSO (which includes most organizations, commercial &
> noncommercial).
>
> We have many ISOC members who are also in NCUC (ISOC and NCUC are not
> automatically mutually exclusive).

My question was about ISOC staff, not members.  Do you count them as
CS or an "industry body"? If an industry body, which industry
precisely?

> Also within the GNSO, there is an Internet Service Provider Constituency,
> which is where the ISPs live at ICANN.

So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that constituency is
not very active.  ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities
that make up the ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in
the ASO more than the ISP constituency.

> There is also an ASO structure at ICANN where Regional Internet Registries
> belong in the ICANN structure.

I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this excludes staff of
an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
that.

>
> Here is an ICANN Structure chart:
>   http://www.icann.org/en/about/
>
> So ICANN works by having someone participate in one of the different
> "supporting organizations" such as the GNSO or the ASO (or CCnso for country
> code tlds),

Well, I know many ccTLD folks who participate in the RIR communities
AND the ccNSO.  Are you saying this is somehow verboten?  I reject as
nonsensical the notion that people fit into one and only one silo
within ICANN.  It's just not the case!

Your proposal is still too restrictive for my liking. While it may be
more palatable than the alternative, I still can't support it.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Mar 27 07:05:18 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:05:18 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com>
 <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk>

In message <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb at mail.gmail.com>, 
at 08:18:49 on Fri, 27 Mar 2009, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>> Also within the GNSO, there is an Internet Service Provider Constituency,
>> which is where the ISPs live at ICANN.
>
>So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
>eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that constituency is
>not very active.

ISPs are one of the major operators of Name Servers (on behalf of their 
customers-wearing-registrant-hats), and large numbers of domains are 
registered through ISPs.

>ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities that make up the 
>ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in the ASO more than 
>the ISP constituency.

But the ASO doesn't have an input into Domain Name policy (as far as I 
can see).

>> There is also an ASO structure at ICANN where Regional Internet Registries
>> belong in the ICANN structure.
>
>I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this excludes staff of
>an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
>that.

Again, it doesn't really matter in this case who feeds policy into the 
ASO (although I agree it's the communities not the RIR secretariats) 
because the ASO is in a completely different silo compared to the GNSO.

>> Here is an ICANN Structure chart:
>>   http://www.icann.org/en/about/
>>
>> So ICANN works by having someone participate in one of the different
>> "supporting organizations" such as the GNSO or the ASO (or CCnso for country
>> code tlds),
>
>Well, I know many ccTLD folks who participate in the RIR communities
>AND the ccNSO.  Are you saying this is somehow verboten?  I reject as
>nonsensical the notion that people fit into one and only one silo
>within ICANN.  It's just not the case!

Especially when one silo is discussing names, and the other numbers.

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 27 08:02:57 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:02:57 +0000
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
In-Reply-To: <790782FA289D40B4B41D1156486BA6E0@IAN>
References: <790782FA289D40B4B41D1156486BA6E0@IAN>
Message-ID: <49CCC071.70305@wzb.eu>

Hi Ian, hi all,


it seems there is a misunderstanding of the status of the phrase you are 
quoting below.

> There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging 
> issues has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the 
> statement
> 

> “While some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and principles’ 
> as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no 
> established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be 
> discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. “
> 
>  
> 
> Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this. 
> Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme 
> should not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and 
> principles should not be discussed??

The wording about Internet rights and principles in the program paper 
goes back to the report about the last MAG meeting. It reflects the 
discussion the MAG had about Internet rights and principles. While a 
majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights 
and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member 
who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given 
was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis 
agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.

Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG 
meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those 
explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF 
agenda. At the same time, the reports and program documents have to 
reflect the diversity of opinions expressed at the consultation and the 
MAG meeting. The best the secretariat can do is to display conflicting 
issues in a way that we all know where and when we have to take a firm 
stand on an issue.

Regarding the role of Internet rights and principles as such, I don't 
think we will see this as the overall title of this year's IGF meeting. 
There is a general preference for more vague and non-offensive wordings. 
As I said before, the general title has a rather symbolic meaning 
anyway. We gain much more if we advocate for a substantive treatment of 
this theme in form of workshops and main sessions.

jeanette


> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible 
> IGC response by April 24.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> PO Box 429
> 
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> 
> Australia
> 
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> 
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Mar 27 10:56:03 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:56:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <0F96973C-00F5-41C1-B35A-E9BDFEE037E9@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <5FFAB4EC-AE59-4299-B582-363D712C5FC0@imaginelaw.com>
 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com>
 <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>,<mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


________________________________________
>So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
>eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that constituency is
>not very active.

There is an ISP constituency in the commercial users stakeholder group. 
Insofar as ISPs are registrars and suppliers of domain name services they would also be eligible for the registrar constituency. 
It's clear where they belong in the GNSO and it is not a Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. 

>ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities that make up the
>ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in the ASO more than
>the ISP constituency.

True. 

>I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this excludes staff of
>an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
>that.

Anyone who has dealt with ICANN staff would have trouble believing your assertion that there is some homogeneous "community" that makes address policy and is miraculously uninfluenced by professional staff. That being said, this is something we could revisit in the case of RIRs. 
E.g., an RIR staff member might have an interest in domain name policy qua family member, public interest advocate, etc. This would only become a problem if RIRs made an organized move to capture some part of ICANN, which seems both unlikely and not something we have seen ayn indication of in the past. ccNSO, on the other hand, directly overlaps with GNSO in policy authority many times. Overall, it's a minor issue. There are what, a total of 50-60 RIR staff worldwide? Our basic objective is simply to protect a NCSG against domination, undue influence or capture by segments of the policy making communnity who are not really noncommercial stakeholders. 

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 27 10:56:33 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:56:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <EA6F63D43D0645F4857076A1269E1E3E@IAN>
References: <49CBD62F.4010700@wzb.eu>,<EA6F63D43D0645F4857076A1269E1E3E@IAN>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I dont mind collecting them off list but I think people WILL send them to the list anyway, and that we shouldn't undermine an important collective output simply because Jeanette doesn't want to spend a few seconds deleting emails.
So for those of you who are paying close attention, sure, send endorsements to me directly. 
--MM
________________________________________
From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:30 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:

True - Milton, are you happy to collect individual signatories off list? -
in which case this topic can be for amendments or for disagreement with IGC
signing on.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: 27 March 2009 06:23
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'Lee W McKnight'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
>
> Do we really need to handle this via the mailing list? It creates a lot
> of traffic...
> jeanette
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
> > That seems to be the best way forward.
> >
> > So if you want to be individually listed, just sign up here (many others
> > have) Include your country and organizational affiliation.
> >
> > And if you have strong concerns list them here as well, that would
> determine
> > whether IGC as such is a signatory or not
> >
> > Ian Peter
> > PO Box 429
> > Bangalow NSW 2479
> > Australia
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> > www.ianpeter.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> >> Sent: 27 March 2009 03:53
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> re:
> >>
> >> I agree with Meryem's suggested approach, for maximum impact on ICANN's
> >> conisderation of this, both the collective of IGC member and folks in
> >> their individual capacities and affiliations should be listed - with
> their
> >> consent of course.
> >>
> >> (sign me up too)
> >>
> >> Lee
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> re:
> >>
> >> Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. The text may list
> >> signatures (distinguishing organizational/entities and individual
> >> signatures) and, among the entities signatures, have the IGC as a
> >> whole if there is consensus on this.
> >> Obviously, IGC members cannot be individually listed unless they
> >> explicitely sign up.
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 25 mars 09 à 22:48, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> >>
> >>> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of
> >>> names on a list, especially if countries of residence and
> >>> organizational affiliation are shown.
> >>> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the
> >>> caucus members?
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC
> >>> statement re: ICANN NCSG
> >>>
> >>> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
> >>>
> >>> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong
> >>> disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the
> >>> Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would
> >>> change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet
> >>> Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a
> >>> phrase on who the Caucus is)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway sign me up!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ian Peter
> >>>
> >>> PO Box 429
> >>>
> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479
> >>>
> >>> Australia
> >>>
> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> >>>
> >>> www.ianpeter.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> >>> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> >>> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement
> >>> re: ICANN NCSG
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and
> >>> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We
> >>> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial
> >>> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial
> >>> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor
> >>> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the
> >>> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for
> >>> civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
> >>> Organization.
> >>>
> >>> We specifically support the proposal because:
> >>>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for
> >>> input by relevant ICANN participants;
> >>>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but
> >>> avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent
> >>> constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative
> >>> structures and representatives;
> >>>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not
> >>> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined
> >>> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
> >>>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-
> >>> based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small
> >>> factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
> >>>
> >>> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed
> >>> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not
> >>> foster global, geographically diverse representation.
> >>>
> >>> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative
> >>> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
> >>>
> >>> Signed,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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

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


From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 27 11:19:22 2009
From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
Message-ID: <617439.69067.qm@web34607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Highly agreeable summary

Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E.,
Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc.
Financial Investment Adviser Tel: 91-821-2342612; 0091 9449323325

--- On Fri, 3/27/09, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 5:32 PM

Hi Ian, hi all,


it seems there is a misunderstanding of the status of the phrase you are quoting below.

> There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging issues has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the statement
> 

> “While some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and principles’ as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. “
> 
>  
> Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this. Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme should not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and principles should not be discussed??

The wording about Internet rights and principles in the program paper goes back to the report about the last MAG meeting. It reflects the discussion the MAG had about Internet rights and principles. While a majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.

Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF agenda. At the same time, the reports and program documents have to reflect the diversity of opinions expressed at the consultation and the MAG meeting. The best the secretariat can do is to display conflicting issues in a way that we all know where and when we have to take a firm stand on an issue.

Regarding the role of Internet rights and principles as such, I don't think we will see this as the overall title of this year's IGF meeting. There is a general preference for more vague and non-offensive wordings. As I said before, the general title has a rather symbolic meaning anyway. We gain much more if we advocate for a substantive treatment of this theme in form of workshops and main sessions.

jeanette


> 
>  
>  
>  
> Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible IGC response by April 24.
> 
>  
>  
>  
> Ian Peter
> 
> PO Box 429
> 
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> 
> Australia
> 
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> 
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
>  
>  
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090327/c295c635/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 27 16:01:20 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:01:20 +1100
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
In-Reply-To: <49CCC071.70305@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <50EB010DAACB4C079BC84592E14DDDEC@IAN>

Thanks for the explanation Jeanette - I was reading hastily and somehow
thought the MAG had adopted this minority position (which given the
widespread support at the open consultation was surprising).

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: 27 March 2009 23:03
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper
> for
> 
> Hi Ian, hi all,
> 
> 
> it seems there is a misunderstanding of the status of the phrase you are
> quoting below.
> 
> > There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging
> > issues has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the
> > statement
> >
> 
> > "While some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles'
> > as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no
> > established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be
> > discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. "
> >
> >
> >
> > Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this.
> > Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme
> > should not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and
> > principles should not be discussed??
> 
> The wording about Internet rights and principles in the program paper
> goes back to the report about the last MAG meeting. It reflects the
> discussion the MAG had about Internet rights and principles. While a
> majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights
> and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member
> who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given
> was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis
> agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.
> 
> Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG
> meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those
> explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF
> agenda. At the same time, the reports and program documents have to
> reflect the diversity of opinions expressed at the consultation and the
> MAG meeting. The best the secretariat can do is to display conflicting
> issues in a way that we all know where and when we have to take a firm
> stand on an issue.
> 
> Regarding the role of Internet rights and principles as such, I don't
> think we will see this as the overall title of this year's IGF meeting.
> There is a general preference for more vague and non-offensive wordings.
> As I said before, the general title has a rather symbolic meaning
> anyway. We gain much more if we advocate for a substantive treatment of
> this theme in form of workshops and main sessions.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible
> > IGC response by April 24.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > PO Box 429
> >
> > Bangalow NSW 2479
> >
> > Australia
> >
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> >
> > www.ianpeter.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 18:03:18 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:03:18 +0500
Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <CD7AA0E3E00445D8A84C35B7F732A136@IAN>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714958751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <701af9f70903271503m3e3a50f5tedd9e3ed9ac45996@mail.gmail.com>

I am in as well, sign me up!

-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> That is great, Ian, but in some ways it's better to have a lot of names on a list, especially if countries of residence and organizational affiliation are shown.
> Perhaps it can be a caucus statement and we could just list the caucus members?
> ________________________________________
> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
> Hi Milton, thanks for getting this underway.
>
> I’ll leave detailed comment to others, but unless there is strong disagreement I can’t see why this can’t be a statement from the Caucus as a whole, rather than just members who sign on. That would change some of the wording at the top to simply “The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express our support” (with perhaps a phrase on who the Caucus is)
>
>
> Anyway sign me up!
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2009 03:14
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG
>
>
> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization.
>
> We specifically support the proposal because:
>  * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants;
>  * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives;
>  * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs;
>  * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus
>
> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation.
>
> We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter.
>
> Signed,
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Mar 28 00:13:39 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:13:39 -0400
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
In-Reply-To: <50EB010DAACB4C079BC84592E14DDDEC@IAN>
References: <49CCC071.70305@wzb.eu> <50EB010DAACB4C079BC84592E14DDDEC@IAN>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55560@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Just as a matter of fact, regarding this:

> -----Original Message-----
> > While a
> > majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights
> > and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member
> > who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given
> > was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis
> > agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.

Paragraph 70, the Tunis Agenda says that globally applicable public policy principles should be developed: "Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles."

Tunis Agenda, Paragraph 42: "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles."

> > Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG
> > meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those
> > explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF
> > agenda.

Yes, but the point is that those themes ARE in the Tunis Agenda. 
Did no one on the MAG point this out? 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 28 00:39:44 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:39:44 +0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
	 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>
	 <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com>
	 <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
	 <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0903272139g2b3987cdg95269c65ec73f053@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Milton,

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
>>So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
>>eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that constituency is
>>not very active.
>
> There is an ISP constituency in the commercial users stakeholder group.
> Insofar as ISPs are registrars and suppliers of domain name services they would also be eligible for the registrar constituency.
> It's clear where they belong in the GNSO and it is not a Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.

yes, ISPs as ISPs. How about staff of ISPs acting in their capacity as
individuals? Their interests may or may not be represented by the
company they work for.

>
>>ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities that make up the
>>ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in the ASO more than
>>the ISP constituency.
>
> True.
>
>>I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this excludes staff of
>>an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
>>that.
>
> Anyone who has dealt with ICANN staff would have trouble believing your assertion that there is some homogeneous "community" that makes address policy and is miraculously uninfluenced by professional staff. That being said, this is something we could revisit in the case of RIRs.

and in the case of ISOC staff? no one has addressed that question yet.
 Can only one participate (as an organisational rep, or is that an
"industry body"? I realise these are corner cases, but exclusion is
exclusion.


> E.g., an RIR staff member might have an interest in domain name policy qua family member, public interest advocate, etc. This would only become a problem if RIRs made an organized move to capture some part of ICANN, which seems both unlikely and not something we have seen ayn indication of in the past. ccNSO, on the other hand, directly overlaps with GNSO in policy authority many times. Overall, it's a minor issue. There are what, a total of 50-60 RIR staff worldwide?

more, but not significantly more.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Mar 28 17:36:29 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:36:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage
 Network.
References: <8C17BDC7-4333-443E-B0E4-5D72031B70CC@utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <07CBAE30-15FD-41B8-9A9F-CA9672ECA1DD@graduateinstitute.ch>

Rather interesting....

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ronald Deibert <r.deibert at utoronto.ca>
> Date: March 28, 2009 5:49:15 PM GMT-03:00
> To: Ronald Deibert <r.deibert at utoronto.ca>
> Subject: Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network.
>
> Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network.
>
> The report has now been covered in an exclusive story by the New  
> York Times' John Markoff.  Download the New York Times story here
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/29spy.html
>
> Researchers at the Information Warfare Monitor uncovered a suspected  
> cyber espionage network of over 1,295 infected hosts in 103  
> countries.  This finding comes at the close of a 10-month  
> investigation of alleged Chinese cyber spying against Tibetan  
> institutions that consisted of fieldwork, technical scouting, and  
> laboratory analysis.
>
> Close to 30% of the infected hosts are considered high-value and  
> include computers located at ministries of foreign affairs,  
> embassies, international organizations, news media, and NGOs.  The  
> investigation was able to conclude that  Tibetan computer systems  
> were compromised by multiple infections that gave attackers  
> unprecedented access to potentially sensitive information,   
> including  documents from the private office of the Dalai Lama.
>
> Who is ultimately in control of the GhostNet system? While our  
> analysis reveals that numerous politically sensitive and high value  
> computer systems were compromised in ways that circumstantially  
> point to China as the culprit, we do not know the exact motivation  
> or the identity of the attacker(s), or how to accurately  
> characterize this network of infections as a whole.  One of the  
> characteristics of cyber-attacks of the sort we document here is the  
> ease by which attribution can be obscured.
>
> Regardless of who or what is ultimately in control of GhostNet, it  
> is the capabilities of exploitation, and the strategic intelligence  
> that can be harvested from it, which matters most. Indeed, although  
> the Achilles’ heel of the GhostNet system allowed us to monitor and  
> document its far-reaching network of infiltration, we can safely  
> hypothesize that it is neither the first nor the only one of its kind.
>
> As Information Warfare Monitor principal investigators Ron Deibert  
> and Rafal Rohozinski say in the foreword to the report, “This report  
> serves as a wake-up call.  At the very least, a large percentage of  
> high-value targets compromised by this network demonstrate the  
> relative ease with which a technically unsophisticated approach can  
> quickly be harnessed to create a very effective spynet…These are  
> major disruptive capabilities that the professional information  
> security community, as well as policymakers, need to come to terms  
> with rapidly.”
>
> Download the full report on 29 March 2009 at
> http://www.infowar-monitor.net/ghostnet/
>
>
> Ronald J. Deibert
> Director, The Citizen Lab
> Munk Centre for International Studies
> University of Toronto
> r.deibert at utoronto.ca
> http://deibert.citizenlab.org/
>
>
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090328/016a9386/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From lisa at global-partners.co.uk  Sat Mar 28 22:37:13 2009
From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:37:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
References: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <fecfce260903251112u465e7e55oe778806dafadf2d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2CAC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi Sivasubramanian and all
 
I realise a fairly long thread grew on this before I had a chance to reply, but thought I should answer your question about what I meant...
 
Mary's clarification on different legal definitions of rights was very useful, and I should have made clear that I was talking about human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration, rather than a state's sovereign rights. I'm currently working (with others) to explore whether talking about values and policy principles is a useful way forwards in trying to develop the ethical dimensions of internet governance.  There seems to be agreement amongst many people in this field that we don't need to develop new human rights specifically for the internet; rather, the rights defined in the UDHR need to be applied to this new and continually evolving environment. 
 
 So, we're interested in looking at whether different stakeholders can agree on certain values that they think should underpin internet governance and use, such as open access to information and culture/participatory governance/accessibility.  These values are rooted in the existing human rights framework. If a number of stakeholders can agree that certain values are important, what exact issues need to be addressed to realise those values?  What policy principles can help to do this, both general and specific?  In other words, how can we practically move on from talking about human rights on the internet to actually upholding them, based on multi-stakeholder collaboration?  I think the GNI is an important initiative in this respect, and we're looking at ways of developing this kind of approach.
 
So - in answer to your question - we're not thinking in terms of enacting new laws, but rather about developing new approaches to the issues, rooted in the overall mission of expanding human rights.  Some government stakeholders might argue they have a moral right to filter the internet, but others might believe in core values of openness.  I saw that you proposed a workshop or discussion on values for the internet on this list - I suspect we're thinking along similar lines!
 
I think an important first step forwards is to understand what different people understand by the terms "rights" and "principles", as the debate in this thread has illustrated!  Max Senges and I are currently looking into this through a research project.  I hope the event on rights and principles in Rome this summer will also help move the discussion and work on, along with other work being done under the umbrella of the "internet rights and principles" dynamic coalition.
 
All the best,
Lisa
 

________________________________

From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 18:12
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes


Hello Lisa Horner,
 
Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the recent past and now.
 
Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and to censor inappropriate content ????
 
What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance" any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the agreed values and principles ???

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.



On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:


	Hi Divina and all
	 
	Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights' workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!
	 
	Thanks,
	Lisa Horner

________________________________

	From: Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
	Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
	To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
	Cc: Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
	Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
	
	
	
	Dear all
	
	I agree very much on Milton's rationale for putting up themes (as stated below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best position to organize them.
	
	I'll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and because they haven't re-emerged:
	        1) the future of labour in internet governance. That's a theme that hasn't emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention to labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism, individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i am not a trade unionist....
	
	        2) the internet rights or a human rights based internet issue... That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have disappeared...
	
	        3) media and information literacy/education in the information society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities, sustainable development....
	
	Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...
	
	Divina Frau-Meigs
	
	Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :
	
	

			the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than  full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come  later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to  organize it myself. 
			

	
	

	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	    governance at lists.cpsr.org
	To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090329/982ceb79/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 29 03:13:20 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:43:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2CAC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <C5EFADDC.8837%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2C98@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> 
	<fecfce260903251112u465e7e55oe778806dafadf2d3@mail.gmail.com> 
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2CAC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <fecfce260903290013q49d862d3u82bcec84ef0eaba4@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Lisa Horner
Thank you for this very positive message. I am quoting extracts from your
message http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-03/msg00229.html.
 My responses in line.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  Hi Sivasubramanian and all
>
>  So, we're interested in looking at whether different stakeholders can
> agree on certain values that they think should underpin internet governance
> and use, such as open access to information and culture/participatory
> governance/accessibility.
>

If the caucus LISTENS to the messages posted by participants - posted with
diverse styles of expression-  it would become evident that most of us agree
that FoE is important, most us agree that censorship is undesirable, all of
us are pro-access, and that all of us are committed to an Internet preserved
as what it is.There is a lot more that we can agree upon.


>  If a number of stakeholders can agree that certain values are important,
> what exact issues need to be addressed to realise those values?
>

The problems in most cases relate to the way the issues are defined or
expressed. The approaches differ, but the cause is common and shared. We
need to pay attention to the approaches and methods.


> What policy principles can help to do this, both general and specific?  In
> other words, how can we practically move on from talking about human rights
> on the internet to actually upholding them, based on multi-stakeholder
> collaboration?
>
>
Speaking for me, I want the same Internet with the same characteristics that
the Rights Coalition believes that it can achieve with a proclamation of
rights. But my concerns are that I may end up with an Internet with unknown
changes if we adopt the rights based approach.

>
> So - in answer to your question - we're not thinking in terms of enacting
> new laws, but rather about developing new approaches to the issues, rooted
> in the overall mission of expanding human rights.
>

I am positive that it is none of your intention to enact new laws.  But I
fear that the rights based approach would inevitably lead to that
undesirable outcome.


> Some government stakeholders might argue they have a moral right to filter
> the internet, but others might believe in core values of openness.
>

Government comprises of people like all of us, in temporary hats of
authority.  They live lives same as that of the common man as they step out
of their chambers every evening. It is not an impossible task to get the
Governments from negatively altering the way we live. The laws they enact
have an equal impact in the lives of the same people who enact them. So it
is not very difficult to work with Governments to make the policy more
sensitive to civil concerns.


> I saw that you proposed a workshop or discussion on values for the internet
> on this list - I suspect we're thinking along similar lines!
>


Yes, we haven't realized that we are essentially in agreement !  It is a
good sign that you suspect that we are in agreement. And I suspect that it
more than a mere suspicion and rather believe that it is a clear indication
of harmony.

It is very positive that you are researching further along these lines. It
doesn't mean anything that it was I who proposed the workshop on core
values. The workshop belongs to the Coalition, it belongs to the Caucus, as
a workshop on core values, fundamentals, or by whatever terms the Caucus
chooses to title it. If the workshop is steered to list and define the core
values,  we will discover an amazing unity of purpose in all of us.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wed 25/03/2009 18:12
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop
> themes
>
>  Hello Lisa Horner,
>
> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
> Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments
> of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain
> content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the
> recent past and now.
>
> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and
> to censor inappropriate content ????
>
> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance"
> any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the
> agreed values and principles ???
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:
>
>>  Hi Divina and all
>>
>> Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on
>> "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building
>> discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for
>> internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association
>> with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on
>> progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights'
>> workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lisa Horner
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
>> *Sent:* Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
>> *Cc:* Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop
>> themes
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I agree very much on Milton’s rationale for putting up themes (as stated
>> below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best
>> position to organize them.
>>
>> I’ll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and
>> because they haven’t re-emerged:
>>         1) the future of *labour *in internet governance. That’s a theme
>> that hasn’t emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention
>> to labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism,
>> individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is
>> especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i
>> am not a trade unionist....
>>
>>         2) the internet *rights* or a human rights based internet
>> issue... That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to
>> have disappeared...
>>
>>         3) media and information l*iteracy*/education in the information
>> society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global
>> policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but
>> also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities,
>> sustainable development....
>>
>> Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...
>>
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>>
>> Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :
>>
>>  the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than
>>  full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come
>>  later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various
>> themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop
>> themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be
>> addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in
>> favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that
>> I did not intend to  organize it myself.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090329/79da5555/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Sun Mar 29 05:18:05 2009
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:18:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2CAC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <C5F4FB5D.8A6F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


Hi all

Thank you Lisa and others for picking the thread of a human-rights based
internet. When I reset the theme on the table, I meant it the way you
understood it, Lisa, which is to say in relation to the Universal
Declaration. 

A lot of groups and entities are trying to see how the 30 articles apply or
can be adapted to internet and other online media, in an ethical
perspective. I can refer you to the charter by APC on the civil society
side, a model in its genre, but also to UN regional meetings, in Santo
Domingo or in Strasbourg. Work is being currently done at the programme
Information For All (IFAP) at Unesco along these lines ... I am personnally
doing research on how young people perceive and apply (or not) these
rights... The important thing is that the discussion should be a
multi-stakeholder one, even when considering the perspective of governments
... And IGF is one of the interesting plateforms for this open, and if need
be, contradictory debate, it seems to me.

So I would strongly support a major proposal from researchers and civil
society, for the theme of a human-rights based governance of internet, so as
to fit the IGF agenda.  The nicety of the debates, the clarifications that
are being discussed on this list and others would then be aired more widely
and everybody would benefit from such an open discussion. In the current
context of crisis, this could be  a unique opportunity for dealing with
ethics, social justice and a people-centered future for the internet. I
deeply sense  the clock of the IGF  ticking away...


Best
Divina Frau-Meigs
   


Le 29/03/09 3:37, « Lisa Horner » <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> a écrit :

> Hi Sivasubramanian and all
>  
> I realise a fairly long thread grew on this before I had a chance to reply,
> but thought I should answer your question about what I meant...
>  
> Mary's clarification on different legal definitions of rights was very useful,
> and I should have made clear that I was talking about human rights as defined
> in the Universal Declaration, rather than a state's sovereign rights. I'm
> currently working (with others) to explore whether talking about values and
> policy principles is a useful way forwards in trying to develop the ethical
> dimensions of internet governance.  There seems to be agreement amongst many
> people in this field that we don't need to develop new human rights
> specifically for the internet; rather, the rights defined in the UDHR need to
> be applied to this new and continually evolving environment.
>  
>  So, we're interested in looking at whether different stakeholders can agree
> on certain values that they think should underpin internet governance and use,
> such as open access to information and culture/participatory
> governance/accessibility.  These values are rooted in the existing human
> rights framework. If a number of stakeholders can agree that certain values
> are important, what exact issues need to be addressed to realise those values?
> What policy principles can help to do this, both general and specific?  In
> other words, how can we practically move on from talking about human rights on
> the internet to actually upholding them, based on multi-stakeholder
> collaboration?  I think the GNI is an important initiative in this respect,
> and we're looking at ways of developing this kind of approach.
>  
> So - in answer to your question - we're not thinking in terms of enacting new
> laws, but rather about developing new approaches to the issues, rooted in the
> overall mission of expanding human rights.  Some government stakeholders might
> argue they have a moral right to filter the internet, but others might believe
> in core values of openness.  I saw that you proposed a workshop or discussion
> on values for the internet on this list - I suspect we're thinking along
> similar lines!
>  
> I think an important first step forwards is to understand what different
> people understand by the terms "rights" and "principles", as the debate in
> this thread has illustrated!  Max Senges and I are currently looking into this
> through a research project.  I hope the event on rights and principles in Rome
> this summer will also help move the discussion and work on, along with other
> work being done under the umbrella of the "internet rights and principles"
> dynamic coalition.
>  
> All the best,
> Lisa
>  
> 
> 
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 18:12
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
> 
> Hello Lisa Horner,
>  
> Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of
> Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments of
> the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain content
> removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the recent past and
> now.
>  
> Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and to
> censor inappropriate content ????
>  
> What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance" any
> way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the agreed
> values and principles ???
> 
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Hi Divina and all
>>  
>> Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on
>> "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building
>> discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for
>> internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association
>> with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on
>> progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights'
>> workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Lisa Horner
>> 
>> 
>> From: Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
>> Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
>> Cc: Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> I agree very much on Milton¹s rationale for putting up themes (as stated
>> below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best
>> position to organize them.
>> 
>> I¹ll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and because
>> they haven¹t re-emerged:
>>         1) the future of labour in internet governance. That¹s a theme that
>> hasn¹t emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention to
>> labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism,
>> individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is
>> especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i
>> am not a trade unionist....
>> 
>>         2) the internet rights or a human rights based internet issue... That
>> remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have
>> disappeared...
>> 
>>         3) media and information literacy/education in the information
>> society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global
>> policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but
>> also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities,
>> sustainable development....
>> 
>> Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...
>> 
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> 
>> Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :
>> 
>>>> the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than
>>>> full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come
>>>> later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various
>>>> themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop
>>>> themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be
>>>> addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in
>>>> favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that
>>>> I did not intend to  organize it myself.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090329/dd8391ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Sun Mar 29 12:53:19 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:53:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
References: <C5F4FB5D.8A6F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <A7D6B6540D19484481A5DA0A10F749D7@PCbureau>

Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes
Dear Divina, hi all

For our French understandig list members :

Divina wrote : 
" A lot of groups and entities are trying to see how the 30 articles apply or can be adapted to internet and other online media, in an ethical perspective. I can refer you to the charter by APC on the civil society side, a model in its genre, but also to UN regional meetings, in Santo Domingo or in Strasbourg."

I'm pleased to inform you that the book entitled Ethique de "la societe de l'information" (Ethics in an "Information society") is available now (see below). In its first part it reports in French on the 2007 Colloquium held in Strasbourg by the CERIME (Centre d'Etudes et de recherches interdisciplinaires sur les medias en Europe) and dealing with this topic. The second part is a researchers' analysis and point of view of the UNESCO Regional European Meeting that was also held in Strasbourg, in September 2007 and which Divina refferred to. It concludes on the necessity of "giving a new dynamic to the process" and of including some missing issues of highest importance such as Ethics in the International and UN bodies and Ethics and Financing for Development.

Best greetings
Lean-Louis Fullsack

Here are the references :

Ethique de la "societe de l'information"
Sous la direction de Jean-Louis Fullsack et Michel Mathien
Preface d'Alain Modoux
Editions Bruylant, Bruxelles (40€) 

  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Divina MEIGS 
  To: Lisa Horner governance at lists.cpsr.org, ; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes



  Hi all

  Thank you Lisa and others for picking the thread of a human-rights based internet. When I reset the theme on the table, I meant it the way you understood it, Lisa, which is to say in relation to the Universal Declaration. 

  A lot of groups and entities are trying to see how the 30 articles apply or can be adapted to internet and other online media, in an ethical perspective. I can refer you to the charter by APC on the civil society side, a model in its genre, but also to UN regional meetings, in Santo Domingo or in Strasbourg. Work is being currently done at the programme Information For All (IFAP) at Unesco along these lines ... I am personnally doing research on how young people perceive and apply (or not) these rights... The important thing is that the discussion should be a multi-stakeholder one, even when considering the perspective of governments ... And IGF is one of the interesting plateforms for this open, and if need be, contradictory debate, it seems to me.  

  So I would strongly support a major proposal from researchers and civil society, for the theme of a human-rights based governance of internet, so as to fit the IGF agenda.  The nicety of the debates, the clarifications that are being discussed on this list and others would then be aired more widely and everybody would benefit from such an open discussion. In the current context of crisis, this could be  a unique opportunity for dealing with ethics, social justice and a people-centered future for the internet. I deeply sense  the clock of the IGF  ticking away...


  Best
  Divina Frau-Meigs
     


  Le 29/03/09 3:37, « Lisa Horner » <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> a écrit :


    Hi Sivasubramanian and all

    I realise a fairly long thread grew on this before I had a chance to reply, but thought I should answer your question about what I meant...

    Mary's clarification on different legal definitions of rights was very useful, and I should have made clear that I was talking about human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration, rather than a state's sovereign rights. I'm currently working (with others) to explore whether talking about values and policy principles is a useful way forwards in trying to develop the ethical dimensions of internet governance.  There seems to be agreement amongst many people in this field that we don't need to develop new human rights specifically for the internet; rather, the rights defined in the UDHR need to be applied to this new and continually evolving environment. 

    So, we're interested in looking at whether different stakeholders can agree on certain values that they think should underpin internet governance and use, such as open access to information and culture/participatory governance/accessibility.  These values are rooted in the existing human rights framework. If a number of stakeholders can agree that certain values are important, what exact issues need to be addressed to realise those values?  What policy principles can help to do this, both general and specific?  In other words, how can we practically move on from talking about human rights on the internet to actually upholding them, based on multi-stakeholder collaboration?  I think the GNI is an important initiative in this respect, and we're looking at ways of developing this kind of approach.

    So - in answer to your question - we're not thinking in terms of enacting new laws, but rather about developing new approaches to the issues, rooted in the overall mission of expanding human rights.  Some government stakeholders might argue they have a moral right to filter the internet, but others might believe in core values of openness.  I saw that you proposed a workshop or discussion on values for the internet on this list - I suspect we're thinking along similar lines!

    I think an important first step forwards is to understand what different people understand by the terms "rights" and "principles", as the debate in this thread has illustrated!  Max Senges and I are currently looking into this through a research project.  I hope the event on rights and principles in Rome this summer will also help move the discussion and work on, along with other work being done under the umbrella of the "internet rights and principles" dynamic coalition.

    All the best,
    Lisa



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
    Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 18:12
    To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
    Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes

    Hello Lisa Horner,
     
    Perhaps the workshop could address aspects related to the Rights of Governments, apart from focussing on the Rights of the Users?  Governments of the world might want to argue that they have a right to demand certain content removed - You Tube has faced such rights based requests in the recent past and now.
     
    Governments would like to argue that they have a moral right to filter, and to censor inappropriate content ????
     
    What is this "rights-based values and principles for internet governance" any way? Define rights, principles and then enact laws according to the agreed values and principles ???

    Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
    India.


    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:

      Hi Divina and all

      Just a quick note to say that I intend to submit a workshop proposal on "rights and the internet" issues, focussing on the approach of building discussion and agreement around rights-based values and principles for internet governance.  I'm doing some work on this this year in association with other groups, and the workshop would be a way of feeding back on progress and continuing the debate from last year's 'mainstreaming rights' workshop.  Thoughts/comments/collaboration welcome!

      Thanks,
      Lisa Horner


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr]
      Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 08:46
      To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
      Cc: Muehlberg, Annette; pimienta at funredes.org
      Subject: Re: [governance] RE: On the process of proposing workshop themes


      Dear all

      I agree very much on Milton’s rationale for putting up themes (as stated below) because they seem essential even though one is not in the best position to organize them.

      I’ll suggest three, picking up on my memory from past exchanges, and because they haven’t re-emerged:
              1) the future of labour in internet governance. That’s a theme that hasn’t emerged and yet it is central to policy-making, not to mention to labour itself. There are different scenarii around cognitive capitalism, individual entrepreneurship, labor value vs. knowledge value... And it is especially timely with the current crisis... But i am not an economist and i am not a trade unionist....

              2) the internet rights or a human rights based internet issue... That remains undecided and in spite of much discussion it seems to have disappeared...

              3) media and information literacy/education in the information society is one close to my heart. It is urgent to propose and develop global policies on the theme, in connection with intellectual property rights, but also open educational ressources on line, the future of universities, sustainable development....

      Hoping some of you will continue the thread,...

      Divina Frau-Meigs

      Le 24/03/09 21:44, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at syr.edu> a écrit :


          the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than  full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come  later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes  but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to  indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I  did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on  "dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to  organize it myself. 



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

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





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

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





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


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090329/839ffac2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon Mar 30 02:47:23 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:47:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU and net neutrality
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org> <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com> <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org> <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com> <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org> <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com> <mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0903272139g2b3987cdg95269c65ec73f053@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03539D71246C46E5A2939FC2BA69549B@PCbureau>

hi all

Please find attached a document showing AT&T's influence in the wording of 
the coming EU telecoms Directive, particularly as regards net neutrality

Best greetings

Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support



Hi Milton,

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
>>So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
>>eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that constituency is
>>not very active.
>
> There is an ISP constituency in the commercial users stakeholder group.
> Insofar as ISPs are registrars and suppliers of domain name services they 
> would also be eligible for the registrar constituency.
> It's clear where they belong in the GNSO and it is not a Noncommercial 
> Stakeholders Group.

yes, ISPs as ISPs. How about staff of ISPs acting in their capacity as
individuals? Their interests may or may not be represented by the
company they work for.

>
>>ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities that make up the
>>ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in the ASO more than
>>the ISP constituency.
>
> True.
>
>>I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this excludes staff of
>>an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
>>that.
>
> Anyone who has dealt with ICANN staff would have trouble believing your 
> assertion that there is some homogeneous "community" that makes address 
> policy and is miraculously uninfluenced by professional staff. That being 
> said, this is something we could revisit in the case of RIRs.

and in the case of ISOC staff? no one has addressed that question yet.
 Can only one participate (as an organisational rep, or is that an
"industry body"? I realise these are corner cases, but exclusion is
exclusion.


> E.g., an RIR staff member might have an interest in domain name policy qua 
> family member, public interest advocate, etc. This would only become a 
> problem if RIRs made an organized move to capture some part of ICANN, 
> which seems both unlikely and not something we have seen ayn indication of 
> in the past. ccNSO, on the other hand, directly overlaps with GNSO in 
> policy authority many times. Overall, it's a minor issue. There are what, 
> a total of 50-60 RIR staff worldwide?

more, but not significantly more.

-- 
Cheers,

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any 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: IG_ATT_EU and net neutrality.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 22016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090330/5c37854d/attachment.doc>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar 30 17:57:10 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:57:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] EU and net neutrality
In-Reply-To: <03539D71246C46E5A2939FC2BA69549B@PCbureau>
References: <F9D39625-0D32-468E-BB84-315E4846109A@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903242200w518b956et8d4bd58ca805be78@mail.gmail.com>
 <8DBBD8B6-A170-4697-BFF8-7581884F6430@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <1004A6AA-086B-4277-B3AB-CB1828E752F2@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903260628v276796cct8d907a81179bb6db@mail.gmail.com>
 <90EECF76-AFBB-454B-AC72-6FCBADDF395D@ipjustice.org>
 <f65fb55e0903262218pd1fcbb8q8e56391dc20724fb@mail.gmail.com>
 <mEmB8ZquLLzJFAjv@perry.co.uk>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BF17C09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0903272139g2b3987cdg95269c65ec73f053@mail.gmail.com>
 <03539D71246C46E5A2939FC2BA69549B@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10C3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

a good example of why we need to be careful about employees of players with economic interests joining constituencies as "individuals" representing themselves. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jlfullsack [mailto:jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr] 
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:47 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] EU and net neutrality
> 
> hi all
> 
> Please find attached a document showing AT&T's influence in 
> the wording of 
> the coming EU telecoms Directive, particularly as regards net 
> neutrality
> 
> Best greetings
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller 
> <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >>So what you are saying is that no person who works at an ISP is
> >>eligible for membership at all? As we both know, that 
> constituency is
> >>not very active.
> >
> > There is an ISP constituency in the commercial users 
> stakeholder group.
> > Insofar as ISPs are registrars and suppliers of domain name 
> services they 
> > would also be eligible for the registrar constituency.
> > It's clear where they belong in the GNSO and it is not a 
> Noncommercial 
> > Stakeholders Group.
> 
> yes, ISPs as ISPs. How about staff of ISPs acting in their capacity as
> individuals? Their interests may or may not be represented by the
> company they work for.
> 
> >
> >>ISP staff are the most active in the RIR communities that 
> make up the
> >>ASO, so I would suggest that ISPs "live" in ICANN in the 
> ASO more than
> >>the ISP constituency.
> >
> > True.
> >
> >>I am fully aware of this. I just don't see why this 
> excludes staff of
> >>an RIR, since they don't make policy, the community of the RIR does
> >>that.
> >
> > Anyone who has dealt with ICANN staff would have trouble 
> believing your 
> > assertion that there is some homogeneous "community" that 
> makes address 
> > policy and is miraculously uninfluenced by professional 
> staff. That being 
> > said, this is something we could revisit in the case of RIRs.
> 
> and in the case of ISOC staff? no one has addressed that question yet.
>  Can only one participate (as an organisational rep, or is that an
> "industry body"? I realise these are corner cases, but exclusion is
> exclusion.
> 
> 
> > E.g., an RIR staff member might have an interest in domain 
> name policy qua 
> > family member, public interest advocate, etc. This would 
> only become a 
> > problem if RIRs made an organized move to capture some part 
> of ICANN, 
> > which seems both unlikely and not something we have seen 
> ayn indication of 
> > in the past. ccNSO, on the other hand, directly overlaps 
> with GNSO in 
> > policy authority many times. Overall, it's a minor issue. 
> There are what, 
> > a total of 50-60 RIR staff worldwide?
> 
> more, but not significantly more.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 31 08:17:19 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:47:19 +0530
Subject: FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55560@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49CCC071.70305@wzb.eu> <50EB010DAACB4C079BC84592E14DDDEC@IAN> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55560@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <49D209CF.5050200@itforchange.net>

>Yes, but the point is that those themes ARE in the Tunis Agenda. 
>Did no one on the MAG point this out? 

Milton

When the discussion on the IGF-4's overall theme begun, after one member 
proposed 'Internet - An Opportunity for All' I immediately proposed 
'Internet rights and principles' and it got negative responses from 
expected quarters. The bigger problem was that it did not get much 
support from many 'expected quarters' (my way of getting around the 
chatham house rules :) ) especially from those who have typically 
preferred 'non-controversial' titles and themes. Some civil society 
voiced spoke in favour  but it never looked like picking up good 
momentum. We can only be happy that it is in the text as one proposed 
overall title, which itself crosses one threshold of discourse 
influencing/ shaping, and gives us space to push it more the next time.

As for rights being in the WSIS documents, I did mention the point  that 
WSIS declaration of principles opens with affirmation of a series of 
rights. (While your email below quotes WSIS text only on 'negaitve 
rigths' I, again expectedly :) , mentioned text on both negative and 
positive rights). I argued that WSIS docs say that we vision an 
information society based on rights and, in another document that  the 
Internet  is  a  central infrastructure of the information society. Read 
together it obviously makes it important to at least explore what rights 
are relevant and important vis a vis the Internet.

I did not make the point you make on 'development of globally-applicable 
principle' because real opposition was to the term 'Internet rights'.

parminder

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just as a matter of fact, regarding this:
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>>     
>>> While a
>>> majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights
>>> and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member
>>> who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given
>>> was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis
>>> agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.
>>>       
>
> Paragraph 70, the Tunis Agenda says that globally applicable public policy principles should be developed: "Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles."
>
> Tunis Agenda, Paragraph 42: "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles."
>
>   
>>> Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG
>>> meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those
>>> explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF
>>> agenda.
>>>       
>
> Yes, but the point is that those themes ARE in the Tunis Agenda. 
> Did no one on the MAG point this out? 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any 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/20090331/624f7999/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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