From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 31 16:24:23 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:24:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community In-Reply-To: References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net> <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20090531213720.99783E0EAA@smtp3.electricembers.net> At 21:43 31/05/2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >Er, how about the restructuring of the board to have a controlling >number of seats for paying members than those who formerly controled ISOC? >Isn't that a form a 'favoritism'? (Apologies if I have the timing >wrong, but wasn't that during your tenure?) Dear George, my point was not to raise a dispute. It was only to make clear that as a sustaining member I understand I have no Trustee representing me, that I understand the priorities of some, and that I have to fight myself to sustain my own points of view against what I perceive as a consortium oriented creep. Because I do not think that such a creep is a good thing for the Internet. However, after years and years where I tried to technically catalyze a positive evolution at the IETF, after having been ignored, laughed at, I am now attacked (I suppose you know what Gandhi said about that strategy). This means that, unfortunately, a soft catalyzis will not succeed because some big interests are at stake (that IAB documented this well in its RFC 3869) : > 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. In > addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding > source can also affect the content of the research, for example, > towards or against the development of open standards, or taking > varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols > on the other traffic on the Internet. A network cannot be a place of conflicts. This means that we have to compose. This means that since the current ISOC leadership does not wish to represent "users" so much and does not express interest in "people" (in the IGF/WSIS way) we had to: 1) organizea way for the ead users to contribute to the IETF (along with RFC 3935 which organises the IETF). This is the purpose of the IUCG (pls look at the Charter). 2) as you say, ask the ISOC current leadership their position. Since they do not respond, the best was to be practical. I observed the way they did not support the French Chapter when put under attack, may be because that chapter has always been rebel to unique thinking. I listened to the ISOC meetings when they came in Paris last year. I am one of the few still being present on the French chapter list, now under the direction of a new commer. I tested staff with the "IPv6 Users Chapter" proposition. I keep reading some of the texts coming from leadership.. 3) as a result to move ahead and document a modern vision of the Internet that is able to match the users' needs, before the vendors' strategic interests. If ISOC is truely ISOC there must be room for everyone in it : corporations, sustaining members, chapters, local members. I am not sure it is still the case, nor that the staff wants it. I am sure I want and we can make it to be the case. I am also sure I am not alone in sharing your and others' anxiety that ISOC stays Membership's driven. My test is the OK or not to permit us/me to form the "User IPv6 Chapter" - we are perfectly legitimate to create. Best. jfc >On Sun, 31 May 2009, George Sadowsky wrote: >>This is getting to be a silly argument. >>Norbert: you know full well that ISOC is not governed the way >>Cambodia is. Why make the post? >>Parminder: You seem to have a lot of problems. >>I was on the ISOC Board for 7 years, stepping down in 2004. I >>never saw any evidence of favoritism to commercial entities that >>were donors to ISOC. I doubt that this has changed. >>I suggest that if you want an explanation of of what this >>membership applications means, you go directly to ISOC and ask them. >> >>George >> >>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >>At 12:40 AM +0700 6/1/09, Norbert Klein wrote: >>>Thanks, Parminder, for extending the text of the quote. >>>Living in Cambodia, I know what "sponsorship" can mean. >>> >>>Norbert >>>= >>>On Sunday, 31 May 2009 23:20:47 Parminder wrote: >>> > George Sadowsky wrote: >>> > > All, >>> > > > > I believe that what Jefsey writes about platinum members >>> of ISOC being >>> > > able to designate areas for standardization (presumably in the IETF, >>> > > since that's where that happens) is and incorrect. The quote below >>> > > does not come from the page he references. >>> > > George, >>> > > What Jefsey wrote does come directly from the document he >>> links, if you >>> > keep reading it after the quote you refer to. The full quote in the >>> > document is: >>> > > "The Platinum Sponsorship Program allows your company to >>> specifically >>> > designate areas or projects to be supported in the fields of a) >>> > Standards, b) Public Policy or c) Education and Training. Your >>> > organization will have enhanced, direct consultation with >>> ISOC > regarding >>> > its activities in your funded area. Additional benefits also apply." >>> > > > The actual quote on that page is: >>> > > > > "Supporting our Platinum Program gives your company >>> the ability to >>> > > focus your contributions specifically on the essential work of the >>> > > IETF and our Standards activities.." >>> > > > > Supporting the standards activities in general is not >>> the same as, as >>> > > he suggests, specifically designating areas or projects to be >>> > > supported in the fields of standards. >>> > > > > George >>> > > Now that you know what he quoted is correct, what are your >>> comments on >>> > it, as someone who I understand is closely associated with ISOC. BTW >>> > the term 'enhanced .... consultations' reminds me of something :) but >>> > that is another matter . >>> > > I have a huge problem with anyone being allowed to buy a >>> position on > the >>> > governance system of a body which is either closely involved in policy >>> > making, or claims to be a civil society body (and ISOCs seems to do >>> > both). I also have problem with providing any kind of preferred access >>> > to policy spaces for private interests that are impacted by the >>> > concerned policies, which is expressly mentioned in the above quote. My >>> > concerns follow from what are hallowed canons of democratic societies, >>> > and the fact that we are increasingly compromising them is >>> indeed > alarming. >>> > > I find these practices fundamentally antithetical to building of >>> > legitimate and democratic governance and civil society structures and >>> > basically against public interest. However, regrettably, the ideology >>> > behind these kinds of practices is catching on which I think is one of >>> > the biggest dangers our society faces today. (Remember, it was tried at >>> > the IGF as well, with a threat to pull out funding if certain issues >>> > were raised at the IGF.) >>> > > I brought up exactly the same point at the recent workshop >>> on APC-CoE's >>> > proposed code of good practices on participation, transparency etc. The >>> > list of the IG organizations reviewed in the study done by David Souter >>> > for the above proposed code included ISOC. I inter alia >>> raised the > issue >>> > that we also need to review practices related to the relationship of >>> > funding with seats in governance structures and preferred access to >>> > policy spaces. This is an important aspect of participation and >>> > transparency, which just cannot be left out. >>> > > I earnestly hope that ISOC as a body involved in policy >>> making, or as a >>> > civil society entity, or both, will respond to these key >>> issues that > are >>> > being raised about its practices. >>> > > Parminder >>> > > PS: At another place the ISOC doc says: "...you can direct >>> your support >>> > dollars towards the Internet Society's public policy activities and >>> > ensure that your voice will be heard on these critical issues". Does >>> > ISOC act as a lobbying organization on behalf of any big corporate that >>> > can afford to pay it? Are the public policy positions of ISOC then not >>> > obviously disproportionately influenced by these big corporate funders? >>> > These are important questions ISOC must answer as a key player in the >>> > public arena vis a vis IG issues. >>> >>>-- >>>If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit >>>The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. >>>This is the latest weekly editorial: >>>Law Enforcement >>>http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/law-enforcement-sunday-24-5-2009/ >>>(To read it, click on the line above.) >>>And here is something new every day: >>>http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com >>>PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9 >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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.<-- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun May 31 20:39:08 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:39:08 +1000 Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments Message-ID: Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording wherever possible. Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to say something useful. We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final draft for a consensus call. Ian Peter The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. We have several hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org. In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security. We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and respectfully submit as follows. Your Question 1 (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e. stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's existing processes and structures?) IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them embedded in the constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to your Q7 below. Your Question 2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and security of the Internet DNS?) IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind. Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used to make that determination?) IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for participation. Therefore, all of us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical. Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually. However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA. Your question 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in place? Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are: · bottom up co-ordination · balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users · ensuring the stability of the Internet · transparency · appropriate accountability mechanisms · continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent · decision making driven by the public interest We also believe that ICANN should 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the GNSO, without any delays or conditions; 2) implement an appeals mechanism that, unlike its current Independent Review Process, is binding on its Board 3) formally recognize the internationally accepted principle of freedom of expression in its Mission and Articles, and establish a norm that its policies for administration of identifiers should not be used to violate those principles. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun May 31 22:10:47 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:10:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Monday: Computer, Freedom and Privacy - Live Webcasting! Message-ID: <2478BC7C-54AB-4486-ADF7-502A11A3AD88@datos-personales.org> Greetings: Tomorrow at 9:00 US/EST Computer, Freedom and Privacy Conference will be held in Washington DC. I strongly recommend you to virtually attend the meeting, if you have the time. There is an online schedule for live video streaming and a Twitter backchannel. You will find more information below. There are extremely interesting panels such as "Privacy, Online Advertising and the Future of the Internet", Internet and Activism: 20 years after Tienanmen", Cloud Computing, Privacy and Free Speech, The Google Book Deal, The Future of Security vs. Privacy, Online Activism Around the World, Towards a Global Privacy Regime, Social networks and computers, freedom, and privacy, Deep Packet Inspection, Privacy advocates on social networks, Join the Impact and the DREAM Activists: perspectives from the next generation, Does government secrecy still make sense in the Internet age? Closing plenary: Panopticon: Internalizing the Gaze ++++++ Details ++++++ Online schedule: http://www.cfp2009.org/wiki/index.php/Online_schedule Live Streaming: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/cfp09 Wiki: http://cfp09.wetpaint.com/ Twitter Hashtag #cpf09 #followfriday for #cfp09 (1/5) @cfp2009 @pubic_citizen @eff @aclu @digiactive @cendemtech @catoinstitue #followfriday for #cfp09 (2/5) @CharlotteAnne @AriMelber @cncpundit @benpolitico @schatzwsj @csoghoian @kpoulsen @nancyscola @shansell #followfriday for #cfp09 (3/5) @bruceschneier @bendrath @securitysources @phillyberg @phragments @jeremycee @andrewclement @IsCool #followfriday for #cfp09 (4/5) @edfelten @digitalsista @Gauravonomics @wonderwillow @hellrazr @jdp23 @netfreedom @txitua @dreamact #followfriday for #cfp09 (5/5) @sairy @craignewmark @scrawford @ellenmiller @gregpincus @wendyg @mhintze @tribehelp ***** How to follow CFP 2009 online ***** This year CFP will feature live video streaming and a Twitter backchannel. Along with this blog, the CFP Wetpaint Wiki, and Ask your lawmaker about computers, freedom, and privacy,* we hope this marks a significant step to increasing the visibility of privacy and onine civil liberties issues — during the conference, and throughout the rest of the year too. The best ways to follow what’s happening: * The official CFP site at http://cfp2009.org, including the online schedule for streamed video http://www.cfp2009.org/wiki/index.php/Online_schedule * and the CFP 2009 blog * The CFP Wetpaint Wiki * On Twitter, where http://twitter.com/cfp2009 has the latest updates and information, and the #cfp09 hashtag has discussions And please, don’t just follow along — get involved! Join in the conversations on the blog and on Twitter. When you see articles, videos, blog posts, and discussions about CFP-related issues, tweet them and include the #cfp09 hashtag. And stay tuned for more about Ask your lawmaker about computers, freedom, and privacy, a joint project with Capitol News Connection, focused on getting answers and coverage on key legislative issues. During the conference, one of our major goals is broaden participation in CFP. While there’s no substitute for being there in person, we want to make it so that that people who aren’t able to attend get to see what’s going on and be part of a lot of the discussions. Another goal is to increase coverage of the conference and computers, freedom, and privacy issues online from last year’s baseline — CFP’s got a reputation as “the best conference you’ve never heard of” and it’s time to start changing that. After the conference wraps up on June 4, we hope that the blog, wiki, and twitter hashtags are interesting enough that people keep coming back afterwards. If the CFP blog can reflect the conference — high- quality discussions of the broad array of “CFP issues” from policy, technical, legal, international, and advocacy perspectives across the spectrum — it’ll fill a huge gap in the blogosphere. The wiki can be a place for resources for people and organizations wanting information about privacy and online civil liberties; and Twitter can be a way to reach out to communities that historically haven’t been involved with CFP. It won’t all happen over night, of course … but the more people who participate, the more quickly we’ll get there. So please, check it out … and get involved! Jon, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun May 31 23:47:24 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:47:24 +0200 Subject: [forum-isoc] Re: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian In-Reply-To: <4acbc71e6a649f977742c63f763dfa2d.squirrel@squirrel.isoc.fr > References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net> <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <72.34.52.22.1243805841.5373@mx1.ovh.net> <4acbc71e6a649f977742c63f763dfa2d.squirrel@squirrel.isoc.fr> Message-ID: <20090601041648.9D84169D46@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 00:57 01/06/2009, charles.simon at isoc.fr wrote: >Hi, > From now on, can you please remove this address > when answering this thread? >Thanks in advance, >Charles Quod erat investigendum. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri May 29 20:56:47 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:56:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments In-Reply-To: <3DF7CA17-C844-4D1C-A593-AC4D567E35AE@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <3DF7CA17-C844-4D1C-A593-AC4D567E35AE@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A20844F.9090203@rits.org.br> Bill, there is a huge distance here between what is really needed (a fully conceived and detailed 3.0 architectural blablabla) and what we can do in this very diverse, asynchronous, voluntary forum. Not that we should not make the effort, of course, but there are already clear hints in the current text at to what these binding conditions might be -- the multistakeholder principle etc etc. --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On May 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Anriette, >> >> I still believe that the JPA can be ended, subject to ICANN agreeing to >> certain binding conditions. That I think is a far preferable >> arrangement if >> it can happen. > > Among whom would the binding conditions be agreed? In what form? How > would their implementation be monitored and assessed? What consequences > would flow from failure to implement? And so on...we're not going to > get consensus on a statement that's based on abstractions and leaps of > faith. What's really needed is some serious brainstorming on 3.0 > architectural options that are responsive to what goes on within the > organization and to the growing intergovernmental machinations outside > of it (witness this week's CSTD meeting etc). Can we do this before > June 8? > > 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Fri May 1 10:26:31 2009 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:26:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Twitter account Message-ID: <28cfc1a40905010726t428d1331wc4540bd6840eb986@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > On the other hand, it is fascinating how these social networking systems > could go farther. Twitter, for example, could allow the formation, not > of simple groups, but of safe circles of trust, in which each twitting > sequence within the circle could be part or subject of a ranking, voting > or decision-making system. Can you imagine, short dialogues to decide on > things? :) > Great ideas Carlos! FWIW, I just created a IGC Twitter account (https://twitter.com/igcaucus), and will pass along the login information to Ian and Ginger so they can administer the account. Perhaps this will be useful, particularly when trying to coordinate the Caucus "in real time" at IGF, etc. (To set it up I associated the account with an email address on the internetgovernance.org mail server. The Caucus coordinators can either change the email account (this could be updated as coordinators change over time) or they can simply access the account I created - I'll leave it up to them.) For more "self organizing" coordination among Caucus members, we could use the hashtag <#IGC> when tweeting relevant material, although I'm sure other tags will emerge as situations dictate. Best, Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Sorry for the comparison with Brazil :-)) Was just to verify Dick Beaird's >> statement. France anyway is far below and not concerned in that numbers >> race. >> >> Of course it is NOT a country ;-) >> >> B. >> >> 2009/4/30 Carlos Afonso >> >>> Fine, but let us remind ourselves that it is *not* a country ;) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. >>>> >>>> As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World Telecom >>>> Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that Jonathan raises >>>> by >>>> saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be the fifth >>>> largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, it has >>>> indeed >>>> passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. (see : >>>> http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) >>>> >>>> Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in >>>> particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies "terms >>>> of >>>> service" are not traditional terms of service but become the law of the >>>> space for most users. >>>> >>>> The two questions that this brings are : >>>> - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by >>>> which >>>> such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the definition of >>>> Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, >>>> decision-making >>>> procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is clearly taking >>>> unprecedented initiatives >>>> - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation between >>>> those "company governance regimes" and the various national laws and legal >>>> jurisdictions that should apply. >>>> >>>> The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used mostly >>>> for >>>> email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide Web used to >>>> access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with social >>>> networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is looking for >>>> its appropriate governance protocols. >>>> >>>> This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet >>>> Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next IGF, >>>> under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to address >>>> this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bertrand >>>> >>>> >>>> 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>>> >>>>  http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------ > Carlos A. Afonso > Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits > www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br > www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br > www.ritsnet.org.br > ------------------------------------------------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 1 12:38:26 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:38:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> Message-ID: <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> In message <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727 at PCbureau>, at 18:22:14 on Thu, 30 Apr 2009, jlfullsack writes >A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS involved >in IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in this >"hearing". It's just a fancy name for a meeting, and I agree it's likely to be more of a brainstorming session than people talking to Powerpoint slides. >Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom ?) >was made just one week before the meeting. Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that. >Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, >promised to the EU citizens in January last year, because ... the European IGF was a Parliament thing, and this is the Commission. >Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third >point that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). Firstly, you are talking to the wrong people, and secondly it all depends who gets re-elected, and whether the Parliament mandate to have such a meeting is renewed. I suggest you lobby the reformed ITRE committee after the summer. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat May 2 16:39:17 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 01:39:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jose, I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join the iG4D Centre (Internet Governance for Human Development) mailing list that I've set up to take forward the process on Internet Authoritarianism. Please subscribe by visiting: http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d Group email: ig4d at googlegroups.com iG4D Internet Governance for Human Development iG4D Description: The Internet raises significant challenges for public policy and sustainable human development, both internationally and for individual nations. Internet Governance for Human Development (IG4D) is Civil Society platform for Human Development enabled through the Internet. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Founder - iG4D Centre (online) Internet Governance for Human Development http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:47 AM, wrote: > (English) > Dear Fouad: > It is interesting analysis, but would like your opinion on a specific theme > and real has just happened and I believe that authoritarianism, this time by > a social network like facebook. > Facebook has just removed from the network or delete files from the > Peruvian Network Against Child Pornography (RPCPI) without explanation or > reason. > Would it not be that authoritarianism? it also comes from a social network > that is said propelling the Internet? > This is an authoritarian, unless you look like or other viewpoints. > Thank you > > (Spanish) > Estimado Fouad: > No deja de ser interesante su analisis, pero desearia su opinion en un tema > concreto y real que acaba de ocurrir y que yo lo considero un autoritarismo, > esta vez por parte de una Red Social como facebook. > Facebook, acaba de quitar de la red o borrar los archivos de la Red Peruana > Contra la Pornografia Infantil (RPCPI), sin explicacion ni motivo. > ¿acaso no seria esto un autoritarismo? que ademas proviene de una red > social que se dice propulsora de internet? > Esto es un autoritarismo, salvo otros pareces o puntos de vista. > Gracias > Jose F. Callo Romero > Secretario > ISOC Peru > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun May 3 12:19:04 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 18:19:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: "Roland Perry" wrote Sorry, this doesn't answer the first question I raised. < Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that.> Bis repetita : to whom were these invitations sent "longer than that" ? The info appeared on our list on April 26th as an attached document. Definitely NO Roland Perry. Please refer to my report of the EP January 2008 sitting I posted on our list. You'll find the approval of the Commissioner to the proposal made by the Catherine Trautmann, MEP and rapporteur of the Information Society, for a European IGF to be set up before the Hyderabad IGF. Thus, for your personal information I've pasted hereafter a small exerpt of my report. Finally, I'd remind you that for the CS organizations, engaged in the WSIS process and in its actual follow-up, the IGF and its regional declinations (e.g. the European IGF) is not a "thing" of the EP, but still is one of our (we as European citizens) main objectives for a people centered and inclusive Internet, as proclaimed in the CS Declarations of both the Geneva Summit and the Tunis Summit. Nevertheless, I'm not astonished by your comments and advice since you are a distinguished member of the Internet industry. This is your perfect and respectable right. But we the actual WSIS CS, and especially the European one, we need more defining ourselves our beheaviour and guidelines than "buying" advive from some Internet professionnals. Since we have at least the same knowledge and experience, and what's more, we are citizens from our countries, free and independant from any business, and profoundly committed to improving the lives of peoples, in the North but also in the South. And we do hope that ICT and Internet will strongly contribute to this aim. That's why we are fighting i.a. for a suitable Internet governance. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 6:38 PM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > > In message <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727 at PCbureau>, at 18:22:14 on > Thu, 30 Apr 2009, jlfullsack writes >>A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS involved in >>IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in this "hearing". > > It's just a fancy name for a meeting, and I agree it's likely to be more > of a brainstorming session than people talking to Powerpoint slides. > >>Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom ?) >>was made just one week before the meeting. > > Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that. > >>Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, promised >>to the EU citizens in January last year, because > > ... the European IGF was a Parliament thing, and this is the Commission. > >>Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third point >>that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). > > Firstly, you are talking to the wrong people, and secondly it all depends > who gets re-elected, and whether the Parliament mandate to have such a > meeting is renewed. I suggest you lobby the reformed ITRE committee after > the summer. > -- > 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 muguet at mdpi.net Sun May 3 14:13:32 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 20:13:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Dear Jean-Louis Hello everybody I could not agree more with you, after the parliament, now the commission hearings are a sinister joke. EU that is posing itself as the defender of freedom and openness in Un meetings, shame on you ! I am not proud being an European ! It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if not secretive... EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) / For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. /I guess that in North Korea, there are also similar "logistical reasons" It would be interesting to have the list of the invitees ... it is the least to ask But just let me guess... by logistics... would it means that that the EU commission is paying for travel expenses ? Please Milton, one of the few invitees I am aware of, could you tell us if the EU is paying for your trip ? Jean-Louis has not been invited, me neither, and none of my friends that I am aware of. Then who are the happy few invited ? Only the regular of the ICANN meetings ? but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? . Because of this secretive operation, it is not surprising that there are only four submissions : CENTR PDF format Dr. Milton Mueller PDF format AFNIC PDF format ISOC - ECC PDF format By following this kind of non-open, non-inclusive procedures, the EU commission and the EU parliament has lost any political, moral and ethical legitimacy in taking the leadership in forming the EuroIGF. The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, whether in person, or remotely. Best Francis > > "Roland Perry" wrote > > talking to Powerpoint slides> > > Sorry, this doesn't answer the first question I raised. > > < Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that.> > > Bis repetita : to whom were these invitations sent "longer than that" > ? The info appeared on our list on April 26th as an attached document. > > Commission> > > Definitely NO Roland Perry. Please refer to my report of the EP > January 2008 sitting I posted on our list. You'll find the approval of > the Commissioner to the proposal made by the Catherine Trautmann, MEP > and rapporteur of the Information Society, for a European IGF to be > set up before the Hyderabad IGF. Thus, for your personal information > I've pasted hereafter a small exerpt of my report. > > The following step : Consultations to be held in Geneva in February; > the Commission will participate in the consultative group. EC is > present in the WSIS process still its very beginning. She thanks > particularly Mrs Trautmann and supports her proposal of a European IGF > to be organized and held as soon as possible. Internet governance is a > key issue and therefore the EC supports the analysis and suggestions > of the EP delegation at Rio.> > > > > Finally, I'd remind you that for the CS organizations, engaged in the > WSIS process and in its actual follow-up, the IGF and its regional > declinations (e.g. the European IGF) is not a "thing" of the EP, but > still is one of our (we as European citizens) main objectives for a > people centered and inclusive Internet, as proclaimed in the CS > Declarations of both the Geneva Summit and the Tunis Summit. > > Nevertheless, I'm not astonished by your comments and advice since you > are a distinguished member of the Internet industry. This is your > perfect and respectable right. But we the actual WSIS CS, and > especially the European one, we need more defining ourselves our > beheaviour and guidelines than "buying" advive from some Internet > professionnals. Since we have at least the same knowledge and > experience, and what's more, we are citizens from our countries, free > and independant from any business, and profoundly committed to > improving the lives of peoples, in the North but also in the South. > And we do hope that ICT and Internet will strongly contribute to this > aim. That's why we are fighting i.a. for a suitable Internet governance. > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" > > To: > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 6:38 PM > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > > >> >> In message <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727 at PCbureau>, at 18:22:14 >> on Thu, 30 Apr 2009, jlfullsack writes >>> A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS >>> involved in IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in >>> this "hearing". >> >> It's just a fancy name for a meeting, and I agree it's likely to be >> more of a brainstorming session than people talking to Powerpoint >> slides. >> >>> Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom >>> ?) was made just one week before the meeting. >> >> Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that. >> >>> Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, >>> promised to the EU citizens in January last year, because >> >> ... the European IGF was a Parliament thing, and this is the Commission. >> >>> Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third >>> point that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). >> >> Firstly, you are talking to the wrong people, and secondly it all >> depends who gets re-elected, and whether the Parliament mandate to >> have such a meeting is renewed. I suggest you lobby the reformed ITRE >> committee after the summer. >> -- >> 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 > > . > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdf.gif Type: image/gif Size: 102 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jfcallo at isocperu.org Sun May 3 15:26:21 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 15:26:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090503152621.n1hma1d5skgsogkc@www.isocperu.org> (English) Mr Fouad: Thank you for your invitation to join your organization. I am at your service for what you need in Lima, Peru, I would probably be a correspondent or form a subsidiary or Chapter here in Peru. Again thank you and welcome your orders. Fraternally (Spanish) Señor Fouad: Gracias por su invitacion a formar parte de su organizacion. Estoy a sus ordenes para lo que necesite en Lima, Peru, me gustaria ser un corresponsal o quiza formar una filial o Capitulo aqui en Peru. De nuevo gracias y a sus gratas ordenes. Fraternalmente Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sun May 3 15:47:29 2009 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 15:47:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It is good to hear you are starting a newsgroup on IG4D. But I hope it will discuss a broad range of IG4D issues, not limiting itself to what you refer to as Internet Authoritarianism. I hope it will discuss the significance of the new forms of democracy made possible for the developing or developed societies utilizing the Internet . In South Korea last summer netizens online recognized the problem that lowering the quality of beef imports into their country because of pressure from the US and a change of how beef is categorized under the World Animal Health Organization (OIE), and there were over 100 days of candlelight demonstrations to protest this imposition of neoliberal pressure on the people of South Korea. I have an article describing the important role of netizens in these developments that I just did for OhmyNews International. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=385169&rel_no=1 Netizen Journalism as Watchdog Journalism Netizens and Candlelight 2008, creating new models for Democracy best wishes Ronda On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Jose, > I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join the iG4D Centre > (Internet Governance for Human Development) mailing list that I've set up to > take forward the process on Internet Authoritarianism. > Please subscribe by visiting: http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d > Group email: ig4d at googlegroups.com > > iG4D Internet Governance for Human Development iG4D > Description: > The Internet raises significant challenges for public policy and sustainable > human development, both internationally and for individual nations. Internet > Governance for Human Development (IG4D) is Civil Society platform for Human > Development enabled through the Internet. > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Founder - iG4D Centre (online) > Internet Governance for Human Development > http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:47 AM, wrote: >> >> (English) >> Dear Fouad: >> It is interesting analysis, but would like your opinion on a specific >> theme and real has just happened and I believe that authoritarianism, this >> time by a social network like facebook. >> Facebook has just removed from the network or delete files from the >> Peruvian Network Against Child Pornography (RPCPI) without explanation or >> reason. >> Would it not be that authoritarianism? it also comes from a social network >> that is said propelling the Internet? >> This is an authoritarian, unless you look like or other viewpoints. >> Thank you >> >> (Spanish) >> Estimado Fouad: >> No deja de ser interesante su analisis, pero desearia su opinion en un >> tema concreto y real que acaba de ocurrir y que yo lo considero un >> autoritarismo, esta vez por parte de una Red Social como facebook. >> Facebook, acaba de quitar de la red o borrar los archivos de la Red >> Peruana Contra la Pornografia Infantil (RPCPI), sin explicacion ni motivo. >> ¿acaso no seria esto un autoritarismo? que ademas proviene de una red >> social que se dice propulsora de internet? >> Esto es un autoritarismo, salvo otros pareces o puntos de vista. >> Gracias >> Jose F. Callo Romero >>    Secretario >>    ISOC Peru >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 3 15:49:42 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:49:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: <20090503152621.n1hma1d5skgsogkc@www.isocperu.org> References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> <20090503152621.n1hma1d5skgsogkc@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905031249r212a256eu4f54a5af62870aa2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jose, Welcome on board and thank you for extending your support. As we progress through the formation of this important initiative and move into extension and democratization through a mutually accepted process, all members will be considered to group up in their countries and take on board the duties for iG4D, and in your case, the iG4D Peru! Initially as more members sign up, a call for the First Online Conference for Internet Governance for Human Development will be initiated that will set the stage for the mutually evolved and democratically agreed upon Mission and Goals of this Civil Society initiative. This will lay out the issues, actors and actions. Once the above has been achieved, a stimulus document carrying the planned network will be shared and upon approval, a process will be initiated for role identification. We look forward to achieving all this within this year and naturally progress towards a more broader growth and action objective. iG4D will represent the voice and actions of Civil Society towards the democratization of the Internet to evolve it as a resource foundation for sustainable human development! On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:26 AM, wrote: > (English) > Mr Fouad: > Thank you for your invitation to join your organization. I am at your > service for what you need in Lima, Peru, I would probably be a correspondent > or form a subsidiary or Chapter here in Peru. > Again thank you and welcome your orders. > Fraternally > > (Spanish) > Señor Fouad: > Gracias por su invitacion a formar parte de su organizacion. Estoy a sus > ordenes para lo que necesite en Lima, Peru, me gustaria ser un corresponsal > o quiza formar una filial o Capitulo aqui en Peru. > De nuevo gracias y a sus gratas ordenes. > Fraternalmente > Jose F. Callo Romero >    Secretario >    ISOC Peru > > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 3 16:01:33 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 01:01:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> <701af9f70905021339q3f2502eeo5fc09956bce231c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70905031301s4cdbed77xed8d02fe9bc94567@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ronda, Internet Authoritarianism is just an initial discussion topic though we have keen interest in its evolution and stock taking activity that will happen at iG4D as we progress. Yes true, iG4D is not limited to this and as I shared earlier, we are a community and this is just one step taken by me and the floor is open to everyone's initiatives that will set the agenda for us to progress for iG4D. iG4D as you will experience shortly is targeted to incorporate a broad range of IG4D issues, not limiting itself to what I am referring to as Internet Authoritarianism or for ease, IA. As I mentioned earlier in the email on IA, I do not intend to limit discussion by coining IA, IA will just act as a reference to a broad range of issues as you have shared including the new forms of democracy made possible for the developing or developed societies utilizing the Internet! NeoCommunities is an interesting read from my end that elaborates this concept: Title: Connecting "IT" with "People" - Understanding Neo-Connectivity & Neo-Communities Source: http://www.ifossf.org/blog/fouad_bajwa/20070227/connecting_it_with_people_understanding_neo_connectivity_neo_communities As you read through the above article, you will be able to explore the spirit of iG4D as I stated then: "After detailing the concept of Neo-Connectivity enabling Neo-Communities in the 21st Century, I am in a position to assume that my citizenship of a Neo-Community enables me to be part of a new meaning of open and inclusive existence where knowledge is produced both individually and in the form of groups that share knowledge as well as sell knowledge in Neo-Varieties to enable an ecosystem of demand and supply and compensate livelihoods that did exist but was highly stereotyped as being an inefficient model by capitalist and monopolist theories. Our citizenship within Neo-Communities thus gives rise to Neo-Citizenship." iG4D will touch base with existing issues, actors and actions as well as emerging. Trust me, this Civil Society Platform will the most open and inclusive network for participation, sharing and development activity that hasn't been able to evolve as of yet due to overpowering of public and private sectors on the Internet development issues. We are not replicating, we will ensure we act. Best On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Ronda Hauben wrote: > It is good to hear you are starting a newsgroup on IG4D. > > But I hope it will discuss a broad range of IG4D issues, not limiting > itself to what you refer to as Internet Authoritarianism. > > I hope it will discuss the significance of the new forms of democracy > made possible for the developing or developed > societies utilizing the Internet . > > In South Korea last summer netizens online recognized the problem that > lowering the quality of beef imports into > their country because of pressure from the US and a change of how beef > is categorized under the World Animal > Health Organization (OIE), and there were over 100 days of candlelight > demonstrations to protest this imposition of neoliberal pressure on > the people of South Korea. > > I have an article describing the important role of netizens in these > developments that I just did for OhmyNews International. > > http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=385169&rel_no=1 > Netizen Journalism as Watchdog Journalism > Netizens and Candlelight 2008, creating new models for Democracy > > best wishes > > Ronda > > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear Jose, >> I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join the iG4D Centre >> (Internet Governance for Human Development) mailing list that I've set up to >> take forward the process on Internet Authoritarianism. >> Please subscribe by visiting: http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d >> Group email: ig4d at googlegroups.com >> >> iG4D Internet Governance for Human Development iG4D >> Description: >> The Internet raises significant challenges for public policy and sustainable >> human development, both internationally and for individual nations. Internet >> Governance for Human Development (IG4D) is Civil Society platform for Human >> Development enabled through the Internet. >> -- >> >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Founder - iG4D Centre (online) >> Internet Governance for Human Development >> http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:47 AM, wrote: >>> >>> (English) >>> Dear Fouad: >>> It is interesting analysis, but would like your opinion on a specific >>> theme and real has just happened and I believe that authoritarianism, this >>> time by a social network like facebook. >>> Facebook has just removed from the network or delete files from the >>> Peruvian Network Against Child Pornography (RPCPI) without explanation or >>> reason. >>> Would it not be that authoritarianism? it also comes from a social network >>> that is said propelling the Internet? >>> This is an authoritarian, unless you look like or other viewpoints. >>> Thank you >>> >>> (Spanish) >>> Estimado Fouad: >>> No deja de ser interesante su analisis, pero desearia su opinion en un >>> tema concreto y real que acaba de ocurrir y que yo lo considero un >>> autoritarismo, esta vez por parte de una Red Social como facebook. >>> Facebook, acaba de quitar de la red o borrar los archivos de la Red >>> Peruana Contra la Pornografia Infantil (RPCPI), sin explicacion ni motivo. >>> ¿acaso no seria esto un autoritarismo? que ademas proviene de una red >>> social que se dice propulsora de internet? >>> Esto es un autoritarismo, salvo otros pareces o puntos de vista. >>> Gracias >>> Jose F. Callo Romero >>>    Secretario >>>    ISOC Peru >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > > -- > Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 3 17:07:42 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 17:07:42 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC2FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Francis No, EU is not paying for my trip. I am in Delft, and it is easy to get to Brussels, so I go without any support. Never asked for it, never was discussed. --MM ________________________________ From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:14 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jlfullsack; WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance Cc: Roland Perry; Caucus Europe Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements Dear Jean-Louis Hello everybody I could not agree more with you, after the parliament, now the commission hearings are a sinister joke. EU that is posing itself as the defender of freedom and openness in Un meetings, shame on you ! I am not proud being an European ! It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if not secretive... EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. I guess that in North Korea, there are also similar "logistical reasons" It would be interesting to have the list of the invitees ... it is the least to ask But just let me guess... by logistics... would it means that that the EU commission is paying for travel expenses ? Please Milton, one of the few invitees I am aware of, could you tell us if the EU is paying for your trip ? Jean-Louis has not been invited, me neither, and none of my friends that I am aware of. Then who are the happy few invited ? Only the regular of the ICANN meetings ? but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? . Because of this secretive operation, it is not surprising that there are only four submissions : CENTR [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CC11.AB93F2C0] Dr. Milton Mueller [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CC11.AB93F2C0] AFNIC [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CC11.AB93F2C0] ISOC - ECC [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CC11.AB93F2C0] By following this kind of non-open, non-inclusive procedures, the EU commission and the EU parliament has lost any political, moral and ethical legitimacy in taking the leadership in forming the EuroIGF. The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, whether in person, or remotely. Best Francis "Roland Perry" wrote Sorry, this doesn't answer the first question I raised. < Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that.> Bis repetita : to whom were these invitations sent "longer than that" ? The info appeared on our list on April 26th as an attached document. Definitely NO Roland Perry. Please refer to my report of the EP January 2008 sitting I posted on our list. You'll find the approval of the Commissioner to the proposal made by the Catherine Trautmann, MEP and rapporteur of the Information Society, for a European IGF to be set up before the Hyderabad IGF. Thus, for your personal information I've pasted hereafter a small exerpt of my report. Finally, I'd remind you that for the CS organizations, engaged in the WSIS process and in its actual follow-up, the IGF and its regional declinations (e.g. the European IGF) is not a "thing" of the EP, but still is one of our (we as European citizens) main objectives for a people centered and inclusive Internet, as proclaimed in the CS Declarations of both the Geneva Summit and the Tunis Summit. Nevertheless, I'm not astonished by your comments and advice since you are a distinguished member of the Internet industry. This is your perfect and respectable right. But we the actual WSIS CS, and especially the European one, we need more defining ourselves our beheaviour and guidelines than "buying" advive from some Internet professionnals. Since we have at least the same knowledge and experience, and what's more, we are citizens from our countries, free and independant from any business, and profoundly committed to improving the lives of peoples, in the North but also in the South. And we do hope that ICT and Internet will strongly contribute to this aim. That's why we are fighting i.a. for a suitable Internet governance. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 6:38 PM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In message <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727 at PCbureau>, at 18:22:14 on Thu, 30 Apr 2009, jlfullsack writes A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS involved in IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in this "hearing". It's just a fancy name for a meeting, and I agree it's likely to be more of a brainstorming session than people talking to Powerpoint slides. Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom ?) was made just one week before the meeting. Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that. Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, promised to the EU citizens in January last year, because ... the European IGF was a Parliament thing, and this is the Commission. Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third point that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). Firstly, you are talking to the wrong people, and secondly it all depends who gets re-elected, and whether the Parliament mandate to have such a meeting is renewed. I suggest you lobby the reformed ITRE committee after the summer. -- 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 . -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 102 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 3 18:30:56 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:30:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <6Lp2P29gsh$JFAAj@perry.co.uk> In message , at 18:19:04 on Sun, 3 May 2009, jlfullsack writes >talking to Powerpoint slides> > >Sorry, this doesn't answer the first question I raised. That's because I don't agree that CS were omitted from the meeting. Some particular CS players may not have been invited, but why they were off the radar is a different issue. >< Invitations to attend have been in circulation longer than that.> > >Bis repetita : to whom were these invitations sent "longer than that" ? That's not my information to divulge. > The info appeared on our list on April 26th as an attached document. That was when Jeanette (an early invitee I assume) got permission to send a substitute, so she was asking for suggestions. > > >Definitely NO Roland Perry. Please refer to my report of the EP >January 2008 sitting I posted on our list. The motion passed by the Parliament called for: "9. Encourages the organisation of a 'European IGF' before mid-2009 to reinforce the European dimension of the whole IGF/WSIS process; requests its President to offer facilities for a preparatory event before the Delhi IGF involving EU parliamentarians; Unfortunately they voted no funds, so the event had to be run as a special hearing of the ITRE committee, and very late in the day. >You'll find the approval of the Commissioner to the proposal made by >the Catherine Trautmann, MEP and rapporteur of the Information Society, >for a European IGF to be set up before the Hyderabad IGF. No, a prep event before Hyderabad, and a European IGF "before mid-2009", by which they meant "before this June's EU elections". And organised by the Parliament, not the Commission. >Thus, for your personal information I've pasted hereafter a small >exerpt of my report. > >The following step : Consultations to be held in Geneva in February; >the Commission will participate in the consultative group. EC is >present in the WSIS process still its very beginning. She thanks >particularly Mrs Trautmann and supports her proposal of a European IGF >to be organized and held as soon as possible. So the Commission supports the Parliament organising the event. >Internet governance is a key issue and therefore the EC supports the >analysis and suggestions of the EP delegation at Rio. I was at Rio, and the Commission and Parliament delegations were quite separate (as we would expect). There's nothing wrong with the Commission supporting what the Parliament delegation said, though. >Finally, I'd remind you that for the CS organizations, engaged in the >WSIS process and in its actual follow-up, the IGF and its regional >declinations (e.g. the European IGF) is not a "thing" of the EP, but >still is one of our (we as European citizens) main objectives for a >people centered and inclusive Internet, as proclaimed in the CS >Declarations of both the Geneva Summit and the Tunis Summit. You can organise your own "Euro-IGF" if you like. But be prepared for even more confusion than already seems to exist. Euro-Dig is on attempt at a similar activity, with a slightly different name. Perhaps you need a branding exercise to come up with a third name. >Nevertheless, I'm not astonished by your comments and advice since you >are a distinguished member of the Internet industry. A member yes. Distinguished? I don't claim that. All I'm trying to do here (in my personal capacity) is help people understand the landscape - discussion is good, but let's all be discussing the same thing. -- 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 May 3 18:31:20 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:31:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Message-ID: In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes >It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if >not secretive... >EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 >May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case. >For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many other meetings going on that day. >But just let me guess... by logistics...  would it means that that >the EU commission is paying for travel expenses ? In ten years of attending hearings I think I've been offered my travel expenses once (and the rules are very complex and are unlikely to cover the trip you actually made, rather than the cheaper trip they say you could have made). >but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? The original invitation doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. >The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded > European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, >whether in person, or remotely. Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann won the "first come first served" race for the name. But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). -- 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 4 04:16:51 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 10:16:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Organizing Meeting of The Pouzin Society ( 04 - 07 May 2009, Boston, USA ) Message-ID: <49FEA473.2080801@mdpi.net> / / /Announcement / Building a better network The Pouzin Society's purpose is to provide a forum for developing viable solutions to the current Internet architecture crisis. Membership is open to qualified members of the networking community, both academic and commercial. Please send an email to info at pouzinsociety.org to introduce yourself and request more information. Through an ongoing series of meetings, collaborative efforts and publications, we seek to guide the emergence of a new network architecture that will support user needs for the decades to come. Please read our Challenge for Researchers and Challenge for Businesses and consider getting involved. Organizing Meeting of The Pouzin Society ( 04 - 07 May 2009, Boston, USA ) during the Future-Net Expo: MPLS, Ethernet and Beyond ( 04 - 07 May 2009, Boston, USA ) Louis Pouzin to speak at Boston University on May 7th at 5pm. The Internet - Coming of Age The Pouzin Society, named after Louis Pouzin, the inventor of datagrams and connectionless networking, announces its initial organizing meeting. The society’s purpose is to provide a forum for developing viable solutions to the current Internet architecture crisis. About 15 years ago, it became clear that IPv4 was reaching its limits, and the IETF responded by creating IPv6. In 2006 came the tacit admission that there continue to be fundamental scaling problems in the Internet routing architecture which would only be exacerbated by IPv6, and that Moore's Law could not save us this time. Several solutions were proposed, all based on revising IPv6 addressing using the concept of a locator/identifier split. Work has proceeded diligently, but a few months ago, it became clear that not only was this approach fatally flawed, but by implication, so was IP, or any variation of it. Academic efforts, beginning with NewArch and continuing with FIND and GENI are no closer to finding a solution than we were a decade ago. In the meantime, “Patterns in Network Architecture” has appeared, describing a simple new architecture that not only solves existing problems but also predicts capabilities as yet unconsidered. Initial meetings will be held in conjunction with FutureNet in Boston, May 4 - 7. There will be a one day organizing meeting on May 4 to discuss collaboration and next steps. On May 6 and 7 there will be a working meeting at Boston University on the specific topic of the current addressing crisis. There will be considerable work refining architectural details, but the central goal of the effort is to form a group that builds implementations of this new network architecture to evaluate its scalability, security, and other pertinent characteristics. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: psoc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6941 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: home_image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13171 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 4 05:15:44 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:15:44 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Authoritarianism refuge in South Asia Message-ID: <701af9f70905040215l2a5cdcddv6883b14d5f4d8546@mail.gmail.com> >From Fred Noronha on Bytes for All list: -------- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090415/jsp/opinion/story_10824259.jsp There is an inspector in my email Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:57 pm ((PDT)) There is an inspector in my email The IT Amendment Act gives sweeping powers to the government and these affect the civil rights of ordinary citizens. Manjula Sen reports Total control: The new law allows the State to monitor all on-line activities of its citizens In some quarters, it is being called the Indian version of America's Patriot Act. Like the infamous act, it gives the government overarching powers to rummage around its citizens' telephone, email and all other modes of technological communications. The American law was enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the US. Less than a month after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November, the Indian Parliament passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill 2008, giving the State the authority to go into people's homes to watch, monitor and intercept all electronic and technological communication. With the President's assent in February this year, the IT Amendment Act 2008 passed into the statute books. The act covers massive ground, ranging from cyber terrorism, Internet censorship and child pornography to e-commerce, e-governance and data theft. Although the law was rushed on the back of the Mumbai attacks, where the terrorists showed a propensity to use computers and the Internet, and a perceived rise in cyber terrorism, the catch-all act empowers the State to use its new surveillance and interception powers for "any offence," which would include non-cognisable ones. Non-cognisable offences are non-criminal transgressions which require a court directive to investigate or arrest. "The net effect of this will be that almost all digital communication that people use in India would be amenable to interception and monitoring, irrespective of whether they are targetted or whether they are potentially involved in any criminal activities," says Pavan Duggal, chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry's Cyberlaw Committee. What is striking is that the two year-old pending amendment bill to the original IT Act, 2000, was passed with 45 new sweeping amendments without any debate in Parliament. Members were busy working up a din over Central minister A.R. Antulay's controversial remarks about the circumstances in which Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare was killed. The clauses of the bill were read out and the two houses passed the bill at the end of it. Under the new act, the State through any government official or police can now eavesdrop on your emails, smses, phone conversations and all online activity. Unlike in the past, they will not even require a warrant to do so. And that is not all. Earlier, only a deputy superintendent of police (or senior) could raid a home to search and seize. Now an inspector can raid and haul off a computer user for questioning - and without a warrant. Lack of independent oversight makes these intercepting powers liable to misuse. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the act is its failure to put in place a safeguard mechanism that would stop the State from misusing it. Right now, neither is an ombudsman nor a law nor any other safety mechanism in place for redress. The act says checks and balances will flow from safeguards such as "may be prescribed". Says Yogesh Kamdar, vice-president of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), "This act which vests a huge chunk of power without corresponding responsibility to record justification in writing has tremendous potential for abuse." He says that spying on a person or group cannot be permanent. "Issues such as whether mails or smses of the target's family members would be scanned, the context of the order and a review have not been addressed. Should the monitoring continue if nothing suspicious is found after several months?" Until the passage of the amended IT Act, Clause 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 allowed phone tapping on grounds of public emergency, or for public safety. In December 1996, the Supreme Court reiterated this position in a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties. Section 69 of the amended IT Act drops all references to public emergency or public safety. Combined with the absence of clearly defined checks against misinterpretation of the law, the new law effectively gives the government a carte blanche to check a citizen's use of communication tools. Moreover, the IT Act, 2000, was restricted to decryption of messages. Section 69 of the new act includes interception and monitoring. Some also question its effectiveness. Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, doesn't knock the new act but argues that a law depends upon the mechanisms that are effectively put in place to implement it. "At this moment, I don't see this capacity in the State to execute it. Where, for instance, are the technical personnel? The act provides powers for immediate post-event investigation like checking cyber cafes, or tracing an online message. But this is only a small tool." To be truly effective, counter-terrorism measures need to be anticipatory. He continues, "There is no preventive value that arises from this act with regard to cyber terrorism. Who, for instance, will monitor a large quantum of correspondence between several groups of people? Secondly, cyber forensics, or examining digital evidence, is still weak in our country. Until these capacities are developed, the act is of limited value." In its expansiveness, the act impacts technological communication and utility, businesses such as call centres and the software industry, civil liberties such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression, and censorship. The new act also empowers the government to block any website on the grounds of national interest, which some argue could result in censorship. "It has provided enhanced e-surveillance power to the State without adequate safeguards to citizens. The language of various sections is lax and uncertain and would give rise to a lot of dispute," says cyber law expert and advocate Praveen Dalal. Two new provisions in the amended act deal with sexually overt images. Section 67A covers a "sexually explicit act" and 67B "child explicit act or conduct" (child pornography). The fine and imprisonment for those engaging in pornography is between five and seven years, with a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh. Critics welcome the clampdown on child pornography but fear that the wording of 67A and 67B will result in treating suppliers of porn and recipients as equally at fault. The act says whoever "publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains a sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished." Other sections of the act mention that the government should formulate "precautions to be taken for preventing the improper interception or disclosure of messages." There has been no move yet to initiate such safeguards. "Such huge powers of interception without any checks and balances are likely to have a detrimental impact upon the preservation of civil liberties of Indians after the passing of the IT Amendment Act," warns Duggal. Caveat emptor. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 4 06:20:39 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:20:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Authoritarianism refuge in South Asia Message-ID: <701af9f70905040320j2b4f4ac1s97d5050ba85042b7@mail.gmail.com> >From Fred Noronha on Bytes for All list: -------- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090415/jsp/opinion/story_10824259.jsp There is an inspector in my email Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:57 pm ((PDT)) There is an inspector in my email The IT Amendment Act gives sweeping powers to the government and these affect the civil rights of ordinary citizens. Manjula Sen reports Total control: The new law allows the State to monitor all on-line activities of its citizens In some quarters, it is being called the Indian version of America's Patriot Act. Like the infamous act, it gives the government overarching powers to rummage around its citizens' telephone, email and all other modes of technological communications. The American law was enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the US. Less than a month after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November, the Indian Parliament passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill 2008, giving the State the authority to go into people's homes to watch, monitor and intercept all electronic and technological communication. With the President's assent in February this year, the IT Amendment Act 2008 passed into the statute books. The act covers massive ground, ranging from cyber terrorism, Internet censorship and child pornography to e-commerce, e-governance and data theft. Although the law was rushed on the back of the Mumbai attacks, where the terrorists showed a propensity to use computers and the Internet, and a perceived rise in cyber terrorism, the catch-all act empowers the State to use its new surveillance and interception powers for "any offence," which would include non-cognisable ones. Non-cognisable offences are non-criminal transgressions which require a court directive to investigate or arrest. "The net effect of this will be that almost all digital communication that people use in India would be amenable to interception and monitoring, irrespective of whether they are targetted or whether they are potentially involved in any criminal activities," says Pavan Duggal, chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry's Cyberlaw Committee. What is striking is that the two year-old pending amendment bill to the original IT Act, 2000, was passed with 45 new sweeping amendments without any debate in Parliament. Members were busy working up a din over Central minister A.R. Antulay's controversial remarks about the circumstances in which Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare was killed. The clauses of the bill were read out and the two houses passed the bill at the end of it. Under the new act, the State through any government official or police can now eavesdrop on your emails, smses, phone conversations and all online activity. Unlike in the past, they will not even require a warrant to do so. And that is not all. Earlier, only a deputy superintendent of police (or senior) could raid a home to search and seize. Now an inspector can raid and haul off a computer user for questioning - and without a warrant. Lack of independent oversight makes these intercepting powers liable to misuse. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the act is its failure to put in place a safeguard mechanism that would stop the State from misusing it. Right now, neither is an ombudsman nor a law nor any other safety mechanism in place for redress. The act says checks and balances will flow from safeguards such as "may be prescribed". Says Yogesh Kamdar, vice-president of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), "This act which vests a huge chunk of power without corresponding responsibility to record justification in writing has tremendous potential for abuse." He says that spying on a person or group cannot be permanent. "Issues such as whether mails or smses of the target's family members would be scanned, the context of the order and a review have not been addressed. Should the monitoring continue if nothing suspicious is found after several months?" Until the passage of the amended IT Act, Clause 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 allowed phone tapping on grounds of public emergency, or for public safety. In December 1996, the Supreme Court reiterated this position in a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties. Section 69 of the amended IT Act drops all references to public emergency or public safety. Combined with the absence of clearly defined checks against misinterpretation of the law, the new law effectively gives the government a carte blanche to check a citizen's use of communication tools. Moreover, the IT Act, 2000, was restricted to decryption of messages. Section 69 of the new act includes interception and monitoring. Some also question its effectiveness. Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, doesn't knock the new act but argues that a law depends upon the mechanisms that are effectively put in place to implement it. "At this moment, I don't see this capacity in the State to execute it. Where, for instance, are the technical personnel? The act provides powers for immediate post-event investigation like checking cyber cafes, or tracing an online message. But this is only a small tool." To be truly effective, counter-terrorism measures need to be anticipatory. He continues, "There is no preventive value that arises from this act with regard to cyber terrorism. Who, for instance, will monitor a large quantum of correspondence between several groups of people? Secondly, cyber forensics, or examining digital evidence, is still weak in our country. Until these capacities are developed, the act is of limited value." In its expansiveness, the act impacts technological communication and utility, businesses such as call centres and the software industry, civil liberties such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression, and censorship. The new act also empowers the government to block any website on the grounds of national interest, which some argue could result in censorship. "It has provided enhanced e-surveillance power to the State without adequate safeguards to citizens. The language of various sections is lax and uncertain and would give rise to a lot of dispute," says cyber law expert and advocate Praveen Dalal. Two new provisions in the amended act deal with sexually overt images. Section 67A covers a "sexually explicit act" and 67B "child explicit act or conduct" (child pornography). The fine and imprisonment for those engaging in pornography is between five and seven years, with a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh. Critics welcome the clampdown on child pornography but fear that the wording of 67A and 67B will result in treating suppliers of porn and recipients as equally at fault. The act says whoever "publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains a sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished." Other sections of the act mention that the government should formulate "precautions to be taken for preventing the improper interception or disclosure of messages." There has been no move yet to initiate such safeguards. "Such huge powers of interception without any checks and balances are likely to have a detrimental impact upon the preservation of civil liberties of Indians after the passing of the IT Amendment Act," warns Duggal. Caveat emptor. -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon May 4 13:15:54 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:15:54 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Jean-Louis is probably right, actually: the EC, at least Ms. Reding, the competence Commissioner, today qualified this hearing as "a first public hearing this week in Brussels to give the internet Community in Europe the possibility to express their views.". To my knowledge, "public" is not "by invitation only" (even though for logistics reasons), and "the Internet Community in Europe", while difficult to define, is certainly larger than a handful of happy fews. Ms. Reding today's speech at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ reding/video/index_en.htm Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 4 mai 09 à 00:31, Roland Perry a écrit : > In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May > 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes > >> It appears that the call for those hearings has not been >> inclusive, if >> not secretive... >> EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 >> May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) > > It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not > itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from > specific organisations and people firmly established in the IG > space (and attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of > that). If that doesn't include you, then you should examine why > that might be the case. > >> For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. > > My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too > many other meetings going on that day. > >> But just let me guess... by logistics... would it means that that >> the EU commission is paying for travel expenses ? > > In ten years of attending hearings I think I've been offered my > travel expenses once (and the rules are very complex and are > unlikely to cover the trip you actually made, rather than the > cheaper trip they say you could have made). > >> but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? > > The original invitation doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is > about IG, not the IGF - even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. > >> The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded >> European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, >> whether in person, or remotely. > > Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's > springing up all over the place. All that happened was that > Catherine Trautmann won the "first come first served" race for the > name. But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). > -- > 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon May 4 13:26:55 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:26:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG Message-ID: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: - A fully privatized and independent ICANN - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international tribunal" (instead of California court) - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. Enjoy! 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 4 15:51:47 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:51:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <$n13ElaTd0$JFAyH@perry.co.uk> In message , at 19:15:54 on Mon, 4 May 2009, Meryem Marzouki writes >To my knowledge, "public" is not "by invitation only" I can sympathise with your position, but "public" in this context can also mean "the proceedings will be available for anyone to view". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 4 16:04:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 15:34:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <49FF4A30.1070009@gmail.com> Hello everyone, I will be attending the Open Consultation meeting in Geneva on May 13th. Is there anything that you (members) want addressed at the meeting, besides the issue of Internet rights and principles as a major theme for the IGF 2009, as stated in our previous consensus: The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: "...Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. However we are concerned at the proposal to exclude it as a theme this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within the IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. If there is, we should be finalizing this now. Anyone? Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon May 4 17:33:57 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:33:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing Message-ID: Dear all In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! Jean-Louis Fullsack IP/09/696 Brussels, 4 May 2009 Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this agreement expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the internet. This would include a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an independent judicial body, as well as a "G12 for Internet Governance" - a multilateral forum for governments to discuss general internet governance policy and security issues. "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US government. "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world." EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the following: a.. A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best standards of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial transparency and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial review. b.. A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" - an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences in this field could be given observer status. On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their expectations for the future of Internet Governance. Background For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day management (see IP/06/1297) and has been supporting an open multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet governance and development (IP/06/1491). The European Commission also participates in the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy aspects of its coordination activities. Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon May 4 17:50:06 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 07:50:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is an interesting if predictable development. One concern I would have if it developed is that a fully privatised ICANN taking recommendations from a G12 (with or without the end of the JPA) leaves civil society input to the unpredictable channels of NCUC and ALAC, both of which could disappear in any future review that views ICANN as an industry regulator. Interested in other thoughts here. This might gather speed with governments as a sensible step forward ­ and although Reding sees this as a replacement for JPA, G12 might as well exist with or without JPA as an alternative to GAC for higher level governmental involvement. Interested in what others think about this or what impressions those attending this meeting might have about the chance of this gathering momentum. In any case I am concerned about the civil society role in such a model. Ian Peter On 5/05/09 7:33 AM, "jlfullsack" wrote: > Dear all > > In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" to > travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner Viviane > Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for > possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited > partipants". > > As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > IP/09/696 > Brussels, 4 May 2009 > Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and > full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October > In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- > Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater > transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. Key > decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and managing > the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit corporation > established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating under an agreement > with the US Department of Commerce. However, this agreement expires on 30 > September this year. For the time after, Commissioner Reding today outlined a > new governance model for the internet. This would include a fully private and > accountable ICANN, accompanied by an independent judicial body, as well as a > "G12 for Internet Governance" – a multilateral forum for governments to > discuss general internet governance policy and security issues. > "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the > respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September for > a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more > multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane Reding > in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. And > Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." > > Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, > when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This > opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the > question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." > > ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet Governance, > such as top level domains or management of the internet address system that > ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. ICANN was > established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US government. > > "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton > administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain > name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not > defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of > an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in > countries all over the world." > > EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance > could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the > following: > * A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best standards > of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial transparency > and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial review. > * A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet > governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – an > informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year > and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. This > group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, > security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this > "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each > North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from > Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. > International Organisations with competences in this field could be given > observer status. > On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in Brussels > to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their expectations for > the future of Internet Governance. > > Background > > For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international > discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly > called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private > sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day management > (see IP/06/1297 > =HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr> > rmat=HTML&amp;aged=1&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=fr> ) and > has been supporting an open multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet > governance and development (IP/06/1491 > =HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en> > rmat=HTML&amp;aged=1&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en> ). The > European Commission also participates in the Governmental Advisory Committee > of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy > aspects of its coordination activities. > > Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: > > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > > Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised by > the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the > following link: > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon May 4 20:09:01 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:09:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61a136f40905041709n6945dd14y45a637e1e4cf2eec@mail.gmail.com> Ian, This appears to be a message for the flagpole to see who salutes but even at this stage, I share your concern. As I read it, the EU Commissioner's construct emphatically channel a rump of the G20 as supplanting and increasing the role of the GAC in the current ICANN dispensation at the expense of civil society actors, including the At-Large. Hopefully those from civil society groups in Brussels will make the case for a more inclusive role for civil society. Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies ALS and member, LACRALO On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > This is an interesting if predictable development. One concern I would > have if it developed is that a fully privatised ICANN taking recommendations > from a G12 (with or without the end of the JPA) leaves civil society input > to the unpredictable channels of NCUC and ALAC, both of which could > disappear in any future review that views ICANN as an industry regulator. > > Interested in other thoughts here. This might gather speed with governments > as a sensible step forward – and although Reding sees this as a replacement > for JPA, G12 might as well exist with or without JPA as an alternative to > GAC for higher level governmental involvement. > > Interested in what others think about this or what impressions those > attending this meeting might have about the chance of this gathering > momentum. In any case I am concerned about the civil society role in such a > model. > > Ian Peter > > > > > On 5/05/09 7:33 AM, "jlfullsack" wrote: > > Dear all > > In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" > to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner > Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and > proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the > "invited partipants". > > As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > *IP/09/696 * > > Brussels, 4 May 2009 > > *Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation > and full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October > In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- > Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater > transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. > Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and > managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit > corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating > under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this > agreement expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, > Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the internet. > This would include a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an > independent judicial body, as well as a "G12 for Internet** Governance" ˆ > a multilateral forum for governments to discuss general internet governance > policy and security issues. > **"I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the > respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September > for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more > multilateral form of Internet Governance," *said EU* *Commissioner Viviane > Reding in her Internet video message this morning.* "The time to act is > now. And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts."* > > Reding stressed that* "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this > year, when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government > expires. This opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it > also raises the question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 > October." > * > ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet > Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address > system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. > ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US > government. > > *"Accountability of ICANN is a must,"* said Reding. *"The Clinton > administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain > name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not > defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight > of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in > countries all over the world." > * > EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how *a new model of Internet > Governance* could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in > particular the following: > > - *A fully privatised and independent ICANN* complying with the best > standards of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial > transparency and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial > review. > - A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet > governance policy issues, such as a *"G12 for Internet Governance"* ˆ > an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a > year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. > This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the > stability, security and openness of the internet. To be geographically > balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two > representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, > three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of > ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences > in this field could be given observer status. > > On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in > Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their > expectations for the future of Internet Governance. > > *Background > * > For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international > discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly > called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private > sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day > management (see IP/06/1297 > ) and has been supporting an open multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on > internet governance and development (IP/06/1491 > ). The European Commission also participates in the Governmental Advisory > Committee of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to > advise ICANN on public policy aspects of its coordination activities. > > *Commissioner Reding's video message is available at*: > > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > > Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised > by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the > following link: > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 4 21:37:31 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 03:37:31 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> Hello > In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May > 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes > >> It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if >> not secretive... >> EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 >> May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) > > It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not > itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific > organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and > attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that > doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case. This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the uninvited to examine why they are not invited !!! but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to themselves.... For example, one question is why Louis Pouzin, one the very few european internet pioneer is not invited... ... but he is invited in Boston... I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ? > >> For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. > > My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many > other meetings going on that day. You are too kind Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross... > > >> but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? > > The original invitation It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of this invitation > doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - strange... the agenda of the EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) includes the WSIS in the first place.... and the WSIS means the IGF !!! *Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements * 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, Room DURI /09:30 Registration & coffee / 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion /13.00 Lunch / 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance /15:45 Coffee break / 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** *Theme description * 1. *WSIS*: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. *Security & stability* of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/chal enges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. *The role of public authorities*: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. *Accountability and legitimacy*: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. *Internationalisation of Internet Governance: *Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. *Digital divide*: The future billions of users wil come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? > even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. but not WSIS veterans... by the way, the list of the invited is known to the invited ? >> The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded >> European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, >> whether in person, or remotely. > > Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing > up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann > won the "first come first served" race for the name. Is it like a domain name ? !!! > But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe : 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct from the IGF, possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe ( not only the EU, but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe ) I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF, and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary, and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe. It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective mandate that the IGF. This could be quite promising.... However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows as Meryem observed /Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. / and as Jean Louis recently posted : /EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". / //The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least... Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent multistakeholder IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU, to counterbalance the lobbies that seem to have taken control of the EuroIGF process Best Francis / / -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue May 5 00:45:39 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Oh grow up Francis. Just because the EU has an invitation-only event, there's no need for you to sulk. Why not contact the relevant people yourself and question them and make some suggestions. Suggesting there are ulterior motives when you have no grounds for such except paranoia is going too far. I'd suggest you are unaware of how the EU operates, or government for that matter. Governments regularly consult with people and invite them to discuss issues. We should be pleased the EU is being open with what they are doing. David ________________________________ From: Dr. Francis MUGUET To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 11:37:31 AM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements Hello In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if not secretive... EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case. This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the uninvited to examine why they are not invited !!! but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to themselves.... For example, one question is why Louis Pouzin, one the very few european internet pioneer is not invited... ... but he is invited in Boston... I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ? For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many other meetings going on that day. You are too kind Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross... but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? The original invitation It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of this invitation doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - strange... the agenda of the EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) includes the WSIS in the first place.... and the WSIS means the IGF !!! Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, Room DURI 09:30 Registration & coffee 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance 15:45 Coffee break 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** Theme description 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/chal enges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users wil come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. but not WSIS veterans... by the way, the list of the invited is known to the invited ? The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, whether in person, or remotely. Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann won the "first come first served" race for the name. Is it like a domain name ? !!! But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe : 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct from the IGF, possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe ( not only the EU, but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe ) I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF, and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary, and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe. It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective mandate that the IGF. This could be quite promising.... However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows as Meryem observed Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. and as Jean Louis recently posted : EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least... Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent multistakeholder IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU, to counterbalance the lobbies that seem to have taken control of the EuroIGF process Best Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 5 01:00:41 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:00:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25C19087-4400-4AA9-A3A8-9215D963CD36@ciroap.org> On 05/05/2009, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the >> internet. This would include ... A multilateral forum where >> governments can discuss general internet governance policy issues, >> such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" ˆ an informal group of >> government representatives that meets at least twice a year and >> can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. > > This is an interesting if predictable development. One concern I > would have if it developed is that a fully privatised ICANN taking > recommendations from a G12 (with or without the end of the JPA) > leaves civil society input to the unpredictable channels of NCUC and > ALAC, both of which could disappear in any future review that views > ICANN as an industry regulator. Welcome back to the 20th century, Commissioner Reding. It may be quaint to think so now, but the IGF was meant to be exactly such an informal group of governments *and other stakeholders* that could make recommendations to ICANN *and other bodies* where appropriate. Whilst the IGF was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles underlined the need for any future Internet governance mechanisms to be structured along similar multi-stakeholder lines. I realise that I am beating a dead horse here, but what annoys me (if you will excuse me belabouring the metaphor) is the revisionist attitude of some that the horse was *always* dead. In fact it was alive and well in 2005, then rapidly fell ill as the powerful worked on damage control to design an IGF that allowed civil society no real input into global IG policy, and has laboured on its death bed since then, until this proposal came along in various shapes (IG20, G12) with the final nail for its coffin. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue May 5 01:54:27 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:24:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG In-Reply-To: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hello These are my comments, as an individual: To progress from G1 to G12 appears to be a good idea. Viviane Reding proposes G12 as "an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" should include two representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences in this field could be given observer status. The idea is that "it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world". At the same time, the accountability of ICANN due to its "unique position of a global quasi-monopoly... requires global management... [as] monopolies always involve the risk of abuse. And who should ICANN be accountable to? Not the UN, because "decisions on internet governance need to be taken swiftly". So a G 12. The G12 for Internet Governance differs from a NATO or OPEC, as it is "informal" and "geographically balanced" with the inclusion of the ICANN chairman as a "non-voting" member with "observer" status granted to International Organizations. Good progress. But a move by Governments to take over the Internet? Why voting status to the Government 12 and observer status to the International Organizations? I would, in my independent opinion prefer an I 12 for Internet Governance with the twelve governments as Observers.... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com(the comments above are my own, entirely my own, as an individual) On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: > - A fully privatized and independent ICANN > - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international > tribunal" (instead of California court) > - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, > I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be > seen as a consumer issue only. > > Enjoy! > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 5 03:55:04 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:55:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> There are at least five confusing omissions in Madame Redings Statement if you compare it with the language adopted in Tunis: In the PDF File from her video message you will NOT find five key words from the Tunis Compromise: "multistakeholder", "civil society", "respective role", "enhanced cooperation", "equal footing". Good stuff for analysis. Wolfgang http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/text/message_20090504.pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 5 04:13:32 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:13:32 +0700 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG In-Reply-To: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905050113n179fc265pa7cae7cfbd47d4a4@mail.gmail.com> This proposal also continues the Internet Authoritarianism attempts and limited control to just a handful. Why not add another G12 of developing world countries. Government controlled governance isn't a solution and the impact is already seen at ICANN that in either way shall still be influenced from whom it has always been influenced. The equation has to be set to an initial 50/50 where international observer organizations isn't an issue. It should be equal participation and intervention otherwise it will have to go through the overall process that has been taking place since WSIS 2003. Government representatives continuously change after electoral terms. In most of the cases, each country continues to change or modify its stance based on its country level governance. The intention of the IGF and process to move towards ICANN to be more open cannot be governed by another third process, I don't see reality in it. Asia by all means is a huge user and consumer section of the global internet infrastructure and its participation of multi stakeholders should not be limited to the view of just government led Internet Authoritarianism. 3 Asian representatives isn't a justifiable comparison to two each from North America, South America, Europe or Africa. In reality, African, Asian and South American regions should have more representation as the developed world tends to pose over-pricing to the infrastructure that enables access to the Internet and the developing world should make its move forward for more control over decisions that affect it and the ferocious pricing structures they have to pay that makes access to the Internet unaffordable for the common man in those countries. If only the government department of one country has oversight of an entire internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world, it is not justice both with the developing and developed worlds. ICANN's global management should be intervened to take in more people from the developing world countries so that accountability evolves as a self evolving process. Its not a matter of who controls the process, ICANN, UN or any other organization. The issue is equality and equality in distribution of management between multistakeholders. I am somehow frustrated how all these discussions and initiatives tend to forget that the people are both the users and consumers of all this infrastructure and their right to control and management is as equal to any other governance model for the Internet. The people's representative should have been the core of all deliberations in the first place and somehow companies are taking over influencing positions even in ICANN, the UN initiated processes especially when they group up. This is not an easy process, even claims or proposals like these will not gain much weight. Intervention and focus should be developed in a process that is already underway. The IGF is under review this year and the more strength the multistakeholders show will adequate concerns, changes will take place. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: > - A fully privatized and independent ICANN > - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international > tribunal" (instead of California court) > - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, I > really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be > seen as a consumer issue only. > > Enjoy! > 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 > -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue May 5 04:16:03 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:16:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59405607-D427-430C-AD17-F21473EC95CD@graduateinstitute.ch> Also interesting is the display of diplomatic finesse that has made Reding a beloved figure in DC. >> >> "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and >> the respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way >> in September for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more >> democratic and more multilateral form of Internet Governance," said >> EU Commissioner Viviane Reding in her Internet video message this >> morning. "The time to act is now. And Europe will be ready to >> support President Obama in his efforts." So presumably if he doesn't follow her instructions and buy into a G12 etc, he lacks courage, wisdom, and respect for the Internet's global nature. The framing and carefully laid political groundwork (reminiscent of the "cooperation at the level of principles" announcement WSIS II Prepcom 3) undoubtedly will help make it easy on NTIA or anyone else in DC trying to argue for ICANN's independence and globalization...And I'm sure right wingers in the US won't take notice...oops, wait...Fox News has it covered. More to come... Europeans: U.S. Should Give Up Control of Internet http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,518808,00.html Monday, May 04, 2009 STRASBOURG, France — The United States has too much control over the Internet and needs to give it up, a European Union bureaucrat declared Monday. EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding, a Luxembourgian, called for "full privatization" of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), demanding that it be removed from the supervision of the U.S. Department of Commerce when its operating agreement expires on Sept. 30. "In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an Internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world," said Reding in a statement. She purports to be calling for less, not more, government involvement in the Internet, using a free-market argument against the Commerce Department's control of ICANN. Longtime Euroskeptics may be surprised by that approach, as the European Commission normally sees fit to issue binding regulations governing all aspects of public life on all member states, right down to the sizes of apples and oranges in street markets. ICANN is a non-profit organization based in Marina del Rey, Calif., which among other tasks supervises the top-level domains of the Internet, such as ".com" and ".net," as well as country-code domains such as ".fr" and ".uk." The U.S. military and defense-research labs at universities across the country built the Internet in the 1970s, and ever since then it's essentially been controlled by the U.S. government. This has upset other countries' governments. In 2005, a U.N. body tried to persuade the U.S. to hand over control, arguing that no one nation should run such a vital means of communication. The U.S. successfully quashed that attempt, partly by pointing out that it's been a very hands-off landlord and mostly lets ICANN do whatever it wants. One exception to that trend involved ICANN's proposed ".xxx" domain for pornographic Web sites, which would have kept online porn in its own sector. Pressure from American politicians killed the idea two years ago, causing consternation among their less prudish European counterparts. Yet Reding may have undermined her own free-market argument by simultaneously proposing a new international body, a "G12 for Internet Governance" that would oversee ICANN and be made up of voting representatives from around the world. Like the 2005 plan, that would essentially be handing over Internet control not to the free market, but to the same creaky collection of international bureaucrats who control the EU and the U.N. — which might mean a lot more government involvement in day-to-day Internet operations. The European Commission plans to hold a series of public hearings on the issue beginning Wednesday in Brussels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 5 04:20:21 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 18:20:21 +1000 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: <59405607-D427-430C-AD17-F21473EC95CD@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Good to see Fox News continuing its normal balanced reporting... On 5/05/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Also interesting is the display of diplomatic finesse that has made Reding a > beloved figure in DC. >>> >>> "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the >>> respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September >>> for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more >>> multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane >>> Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. >>> And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." > > So presumably if he doesn't follow her instructions and buy into a G12 etc, he > lacks courage, wisdom, and respect for the Internet's global nature. > > The framing and carefully laid political groundwork (reminiscent of the > "cooperation at the level of principles" announcement WSIS II Prepcom 3) > undoubtedly will help make it easy on NTIA or anyone else in DC trying to > argue for ICANN's independence and globalization...And I'm sure right wingers > in the US won't take notice...oops, wait...Fox News has it covered. More to > come... > > > Europeans: U.S. Should Give Up Control of Internet > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,518808,00.html > > > > Monday, May 04, 2009 > > > > STRASBOURG, France ‹ The United States has too much control over the Internet > and needs to give it up, a European Union bureaucrat declared Monday. > > > > EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding, a Luxembourgian, called > for "full privatization" of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN), demanding that it be removed from the supervision of the U.S. > Department of Commerce when its operating agreement expires on Sept. 30. > > > > "In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only > one country has oversight of an Internet function which is used by hundreds of > millions of people in countries all over the world," said Reding in a > statement. > > > > She purports to be calling for less, not more, government involvement in the > Internet, using a free-market argument against the Commerce Department's > control of ICANN. > > > > Longtime Euroskeptics may be surprised by that approach, as the European > Commission normally sees fit to issue binding regulations governing all > aspects of public life on all member states, right down to the sizes of apples > and oranges in street markets. > > > > ICANN is a non-profit organization based in Marina del Rey, Calif., which > among other tasks supervises the top-level domains of the Internet, such as > ".com" and ".net," as well as country-code domains such as ".fr" and ".uk." > > > > The U.S. military and defense-research labs at universities across the country > built the Internet in the 1970s, and ever since then it's essentially been > controlled by the U.S. government. > > > > This has upset other countries' governments. In 2005, a U.N. body tried to > persuade the U.S. to hand over control, arguing that no one nation should run > such a vital means of communication. > > > > The U.S. successfully quashed that attempt, partly by pointing out that it's > been a very hands-off landlord and mostly lets ICANN do whatever it wants. > > > > One exception to that trend involved ICANN's proposed ".xxx" domain for > pornographic Web sites, which would have kept online porn in its own sector. > > > > Pressure from American politicians killed the idea two years ago, causing > consternation among their less prudish European counterparts. > > > > Yet Reding may have undermined her own free-market argument by simultaneously > proposing a new international body, a "G12 for Internet Governance" that would > oversee ICANN and be made up of voting representatives from around the world. > > > > Like the 2005 plan, that would essentially be handing over Internet control > not to the free market, but to the same creaky collection of international > bureaucrats who control the EU and the U.N. ‹ which might mean a lot more > government involvement in day-to-day Internet operations. > > > > The European Commission plans to hold a series of public hearings on the issue > beginning Wednesday in Brussels. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 5 04:58:54 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:54 +0700 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70905050158g277bfb90lc93fd94687195db5@mail.gmail.com> I'd agree with you David even though I have nothing to do with being European. The best practice should be to contact the organizers directly and even if anyone from the IGC is participating, that should be a relief to so that atleast what goes on will be shared with the rest of the CS. As far as EU proceedings are concerned, I usually see copies of the deliberations taken place appear online. Nothing sinister unless one participates and isn't allowed to ask questions or anything or an abrupt stance is taken in the meet that there will be no multistakeholder participation. Give them a chance and see what happens instead of prior propaganda of a take over of the activity. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > Oh grow up Francis. Just because the EU has an invitation-only event, > there's no need for you to sulk. Why not contact the relevant people > yourself and question them and make some suggestions. > > Suggesting there are ulterior motives when you have no grounds for such > except paranoia is going too far. > > I'd suggest you are unaware of how the EU operates, or government for that > matter. Governments regularly consult with people and invite them to discuss > issues. We should be pleased the EU is being open with what they are doing. > > David > > ________________________________ > From: Dr. Francis MUGUET > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance > Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 11:37:31 AM > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > > Hello > > In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May 2009, Dr. > Francis MUGUET writes > > It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if > not secretive... > EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement  ( 06 > May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) > > It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not itself > sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific organisations > and people firmly established in the IG space (and attending IGF meetings is > a plausible indication of that). If that doesn't include you, then you > should examine why that might be the case. > > This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the uninvited to > examine why they are not invited !!! >  but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to themselves.... > > For example, one question is why  Louis Pouzin, one  the very few european > internet pioneer is not invited... > ... but he is invited in Boston... > > I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ? > > For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. > > My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many other > meetings going on that day. > > You are too kind > Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross... > > > but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? > > The original invitation > > It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of this > invitation > > doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - > > strange...  the agenda of the > EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May > 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) > includes the WSIS in the first place.... > and the WSIS means the IGF !!! > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 > Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS > principles? What are the > new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are > the main threats/chal enges? > What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their > international dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their > responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies > and societies? What lessons, > if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should > self-regulation for critical infrastructures > and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public > authorities)? To what > extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public > policy making > complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the > Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to > Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that > many Internet users do > not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it > necessary to make governance > fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary > to ensure fair participation of > actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future > shaping of the Internet and if > so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular > legal system or > jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction > concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users wil come largely from > developing countries. Should the > existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution > and, if so, how? Should > the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented > in the policy making > processes and, if so, how? > > > even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. > > but not WSIS veterans...  by the way, the list of the invited is known to > the invited ? > > The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded >  European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, > whether in person, or remotely. > > Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing up all > over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann won the > "first come first served" race for the name. > > Is it like a domain name ? !!! > > But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). > > There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe : > > 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct from > the IGF, > possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission > > 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe > ( not only the EU,  but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe ) > > I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF, > and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary, > and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe. > > It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective > mandate that the IGF.  This could be quite promising.... > However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows > > as Meryem observed > Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as > usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. > and as Jean Louis  recently posted : >  EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) > Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see > below) by the "invited partipants". > > The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least... > > Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent > multistakeholder >  IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU,  to counterbalance > the lobbies that seem to have taken control  of the EuroIGF process > > Best > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D > > MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals > http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net > muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > > ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org > 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE > Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 > muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet > > PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org > > World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) > Civil Society Working Groups > Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair > Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair > Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web > Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web > > NET4D : http://www.net4D.org > UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org > WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Legal notice : > Except stated explicitely, > this message shall not be construed as the official position > of above mentionned entities > > Notice légale ; > A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, > ce message ne constitue la position officielle > des entités mentionnées ci-dessos > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ________________________________ > Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet Explorer > 8. Get it now.. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue May 5 06:52:04 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:52:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B67C9C7-7AFA-4334-AFAB-AE84BB5F9EEC@ras.eu.org> Always great fun to read Fox News stuff! We already knew that Reding was a "bureaucrat", a "Luxembourgian" (though it sounds better in French, however: "Luxembourgeoise"), and that she purports many things, but now this poor Ms. Reding is also one of these "less prudish European", i.e. a porn queen. Le 5 mai 09 à 10:20, Ian Peter a écrit : > Good to see Fox News continuing its normal balanced reporting... > > > On 5/05/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Also interesting is the display of diplomatic finesse that has >> made Reding a beloved figure in DC. >>>> >>>> "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom >>>> and the respect for the global nature of the internet to pave >>>> the way in September for a new, more accountable, more >>>> transparent, more democratic and more multilateral form of >>>> Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane Reding in her >>>> Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. >>>> And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his >>>> efforts." >> >> So presumably if he doesn't follow her instructions and buy into a >> G12 etc, he lacks courage, wisdom, and respect for the Internet's >> global nature. >> >> The framing and carefully laid political groundwork (reminiscent >> of the "cooperation at the level of principles" announcement WSIS >> II Prepcom 3) undoubtedly will help make it easy on NTIA or anyone >> else in DC trying to argue for ICANN's independence and >> globalization...And I'm sure right wingers in the US won't take >> notice...oops, wait...Fox News has it covered. More to come... >> >> >> Europeans: U.S. Should Give Up Control of Internet >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,518808,00.html >> >> >> >> Monday, May 04, 2009 >> >> >> >> STRASBOURG, France — The United States has too much control over >> the Internet and needs to give it up, a European Union bureaucrat >> declared Monday. >> >> >> >> EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding, a >> Luxembourgian, called for "full privatization" of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), demanding that >> it be removed from the supervision of the U.S. Department of >> Commerce when its operating agreement expires on Sept. 30. >> >> >> >> "In the long run, it is not defendable that the government >> department of only one country has oversight of an Internet >> function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in >> countries all over the world," said Reding in a statement. >> >> >> >> She purports to be calling for less, not more, government >> involvement in the Internet, using a free-market argument against >> the Commerce Department's control of ICANN. >> >> >> >> Longtime Euroskeptics may be surprised by that approach, as the >> European Commission normally sees fit to issue binding regulations >> governing all aspects of public life on all member states, right >> down to the sizes of apples and oranges in street markets. >> >> >> >> ICANN is a non-profit organization based in Marina del Rey, >> Calif., which among other tasks supervises the top-level domains >> of the Internet, such as ".com" and ".net," as well as country- >> code domains such as ".fr" and ".uk." >> >> >> >> The U.S. military and defense-research labs at universities across >> the country built the Internet in the 1970s, and ever since then >> it's essentially been controlled by the U.S. government. >> >> >> >> This has upset other countries' governments. In 2005, a U.N. body >> tried to persuade the U.S. to hand over control, arguing that no >> one nation should run such a vital means of communication. >> >> >> >> The U.S. successfully quashed that attempt, partly by pointing out >> that it's been a very hands-off landlord and mostly lets ICANN do >> whatever it wants. >> >> >> >> One exception to that trend involved ICANN's proposed ".xxx" >> domain for pornographic Web sites, which would have kept online >> porn in its own sector. >> >> >> >> Pressure from American politicians killed the idea two years ago, >> causing consternation among their less prudish European counterparts. >> >> >> >> Yet Reding may have undermined her own free-market argument by >> simultaneously proposing a new international body, a "G12 for >> Internet Governance" that would oversee ICANN and be made up of >> voting representatives from around the world. >> >> >> >> Like the 2005 plan, that would essentially be handing over >> Internet control not to the free market, but to the same creaky >> collection of international bureaucrats who control the EU and the >> U.N. — which might mean a lot more government involvement in day- >> to-day Internet operations. >> >> >> >> The European Commission plans to hold a series of public hearings >> on the issue beginning Wednesday in Brussels. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Tue May 5 08:38:39 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 17:38:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <49FF4A30.1070009@gmail.com> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FF4A30.1070009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8017791e0905050538h346f3702y440e0d042b379871@mail.gmail.com> Ginger, Since some of us are not travelling to Geneva, kindly if possible all the event that takes place should have remote participation via Internet so we can also participate and give our input. Perhaps, this was done last year as well in open consultation and MAG members have access to remote participation. Thanks & Regards Sincerely Asif Kabani 2009/5/5 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, > > I will be attending the Open Consultation meeting in Geneva on May 13th. > > Is there anything that you (members) want addressed at the meeting, besides > the issue of Internet rights and principles as a major theme for the IGF > 2009, as stated in our previous consensus: > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > Paper: > > "...Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a > cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. > > However we are concerned at the proposal to exclude it as a theme this year > on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and > that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given > that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 > and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, > if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within the > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish > this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future > debates and meetings. > > If there is, we should be finalizing this now. Anyone? > > Best, Ginger > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 5 09:24:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:54:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <8017791e0905050538h346f3702y440e0d042b379871@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FF4A30.1070009@gmail.com> <8017791e0905050538h346f3702y440e0d042b379871@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A003E0F.1080600@gmail.com> Excellent reminder for us all about remote participation. I will confirm details and post to the list. Thanks. gp Kabani wrote: > Ginger, > > Since some of us are not travelling to Geneva, kindly if possible all > the event that takes place should have remote participation via > Internet so we can also participate and give our input. Perhaps, this > was done last year as well in open consultation and MAG members have > access to remote participation. > > Thanks & Regards > > > Sincerely > > > Asif Kabani > > 2009/5/5 Ginger Paque > > > Hello everyone, > > I will be attending the Open Consultation meeting in Geneva on May > 13th. > > Is there anything that you (members) want addressed at the > meeting, besides the issue of Internet rights and principles as a > major theme for the IGF 2009, as stated in our previous consensus: > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the > Programme Paper: > > "...Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and > principles' as a > cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for > this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open > consultations. > > However we are concerned at the proposal to exclude it as a theme > this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition > of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the > Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that > the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been > expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in > the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of > definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not > possible to include this concept until it is defined within the > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to > establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive > discussions in future debates and meetings. > > If there is, we should be finalizing this now. Anyone? > > Best, Ginger > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Visit: www.kabani.co.uk > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 5 09:28:02 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:28:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905050113n179fc265pa7cae7cfbd47d4a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70905050113n179fc265pa7cae7cfbd47d4a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dude, On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Africa. In reality, African, Asian and South American regions should > have more representation as the developed world tends to pose > over-pricing to the infrastructure that enables access to the Internet > and the developing world should make its move forward for more control > over decisions that affect it and the ferocious pricing structures > they have to pay that makes access to the Internet unaffordable for > the common man in those countries. > A) ICANN has NOTHING to do with cost of Internet access anywhere in the world! B) Often, the things that govts could do in the developing world to lower prices for users can't be done because govt's make too much money from the things that help keep prices high (taxes, landing fees, licenses, spectrum allocations, etc.) C) What you are advocating sounds like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. > If only the government department of one country has oversight of an > entire internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of > people in countries all over the world, it is not justice both with > the developing and developed worlds. ICANN's global management should > be intervened to take in more people from the developing world > countries so that accountability evolves as a self evolving process. Please look at the ICANN Board composition (now and historically). I think you will find many folks from LDCs. > Its not a matter of who controls the process, ICANN, UN or any other > organization. The issue is equality and equality in distribution of > management between multistakeholders. > Don't we want a CS organisation like ICANN running it without govt interference? If you give gov't a greater role, then you are asking for "Internet Authoritarianism"! -- 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue May 5 10:08:02 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:08:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG In-Reply-To: References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <61a136f40905050708r1a70a40ev1dd3fd1ddca9905a@mail.gmail.com> The exercise of power, "informal" or otherwise, has expression. And for me, it is the impact that matters. I doubt if NATO or OPEC are very good examples of an antithetical G12. In fact, I posit that an "informal" and "geographically balanced" G12 would look more like a "rump" of the [economic] G20. The G12 idea represents EU's impatience with American suzerainty of the names and numbers system of the Internet. And from where we struggle in the periphery, it is clear this diverges little from the oft-expressed European discomfort with the uni-polar post-Cold War political world and how power is expressed. Your 2nd paragraph captures this very well. If the EU's proffer goes forward, all that the G12 would achieve is to redistribute power in managing the domain name system to the usual suspects and those countries that are now numbered in the rank of the "deserving few". For more than many reasons, read the latter to mean and include China and India. As I see it, the redistribution would be at the expense of civil society actors. But as imperfect as the JPA world is today, there is, at minimum, notable attempts by ICANN to embrace civil society in its councils. And in my view, this development ought to be emphasized, deepened and institutionalized. The post-JPA ICANN future is a grand opportunity to reorder our concept of global governance for what is without doubt global "public goods". But power is as power does. This is not a proposal that fundamenally reforms the old order. Rather, it merely tweaks it at the edge. Carlton Samuels On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > These are my comments, as an individual: > > To progress from G1 to G12 appears to be a good idea. Viviane Reding > proposes G12 as "an informal group of government representatives that meets > at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN > where appropriate. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet > Governance" should include two representatives from each North America, > South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and > Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. > International Organisations with competences in this field could be given > observer status. > > The idea is that "it is not defendable that the government department of > only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by > hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world". At the same > time, the accountability of ICANN due to its "unique position of a global > quasi-monopoly... requires global management... [as] monopolies always > involve the risk of abuse. And who should ICANN be accountable to? Not the > UN, because "decisions on internet governance need to be taken swiftly". > > So a G 12. > > The G12 for Internet Governance differs from a NATO or OPEC, as it is > "informal" and "geographically balanced" with the inclusion of the ICANN > chairman as a "non-voting" member with "observer" status granted to > International Organizations. > > Good progress. But a move by Governments to take over the Internet? Why > voting status to the Government 12 and observer status to the International > Organizations? I would, in my independent opinion prefer an I 12 for > Internet Governance with the twelve governments as Observers.... > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com(the comments above are my own, entirely my > own, as an individual) > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: >> - A fully privatized and independent ICANN >> - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international >> tribunal" (instead of California court) >> - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) >> http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm >> >> So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, >> I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be >> seen as a consumer issue only. >> >> Enjoy! >> 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 5 10:17:37 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:17:37 +0700 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG In-Reply-To: References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70905050113n179fc265pa7cae7cfbd47d4a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70905050717v424c42ddr445dbc009d3805ed@mail.gmail.com> Also Dude, I didn't refer to cost and just for information, I know what ICANN does, kindly don't make assumptions. IGF is that forum to discuss access and cost of access issues. I hear the henhouse example alot from the developed world. Changing hats in different forums and the same faces again and again isn't a representation of LDCs. Misconception again between the opposite sides of the digital divide. Btw, capitalists haven't been able to balance LDCs and Developed country representations anywhere. Kindly refer back to the text, I have clearly stated equal participation, then CS can never be ruled out. ....dude! ;oP On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:28 PM, McTim wrote: > Dude, > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Africa. In reality, African, Asian and South American regions should >> have more representation as the developed world tends to pose >> over-pricing to the infrastructure that enables access to the Internet >> and the developing world should make its move forward for more control >> over decisions that affect it and the ferocious pricing structures >> they have to pay that makes access to the Internet unaffordable for >> the common man in those countries. >> > > A) ICANN has NOTHING to do with cost of Internet access anywhere in the world! > > B) Often, the things that govts could do in the developing world to > lower prices for users can't be done because govt's make too much > money from the things that help keep prices high (taxes, landing fees, > licenses, spectrum allocations, etc.) > > C) What you are advocating sounds like putting the fox in charge of > the henhouse. > >> If only the government department of one country has oversight of an >> entire internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of >> people in countries all over the world, it is not justice both with >> the developing and developed worlds.  ICANN's global management should >> be intervened to take in more people from the developing world >> countries so that accountability evolves as a self evolving process. > > Please look at the ICANN Board composition (now and historically).  I > think you will find many folks from LDCs. > >> Its not a matter of who controls the process, ICANN, UN or any other >> organization. The issue is equality and equality in distribution of >> management between multistakeholders. >> > > Don't we want a CS organisation like ICANN running it without govt interference? > If you give gov't a greater role, then you are asking for "Internet > Authoritarianism"! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > http://stateoftheinternetin.ug > -- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue May 5 13:02:12 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 19:02:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Needs Digital Warfare Force? Message-ID: Hi all, I just read this on the BBC website and feel others could read before for comments. It seems like the US is looking for another veto power, this time over Internet and the freedom of expression enabler that this tool is. You can read the story on this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8033440.stm?lsf Best regards Aaron -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Tue May 5 13:06:51 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:06:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: <61a136f40905041709n6945dd14y45a637e1e4cf2eec@mail.gmail.com> References: <61a136f40905041709n6945dd14y45a637e1e4cf2eec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <018201c9cda3$e7a17010$b6e45030$@com.br> Hi all Looks like the idea of have just governments to oversee the internet brings the real possibility to have, from ICANN side, just business activities and , in other words - destroying the stakeholder model we so hard defended , back at the first IGF movements. I can not agree with the idea of have governments ( whatever the composition they find to do this) in a superior stage - this is United Nations model and so far I haven't see it can work properly. ICANN community was expecting to run from DoC, for what? to be catch by 12 or 20 others? The only thing we will get is more bureaucracy and less civil society participation. Time to move. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Report Public Hearing Ian, This appears to be a message for the flagpole to see who salutes but even at this stage, I share your concern. As I read it, the EU Commissioner's construct emphatically channel a rump of the G20 as supplanting and increasing the role of the GAC in the current ICANN dispensation at the expense of civil society actors, including the At-Large. Hopefully those from civil society groups in Brussels will make the case for a more inclusive role for civil society. Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies ALS and member, LACRALO On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: This is an interesting if predictable development. One concern I would have if it developed is that a fully privatised ICANN taking recommendations from a G12 (with or without the end of the JPA) leaves civil society input to the unpredictable channels of NCUC and ALAC, both of which could disappear in any future review that views ICANN as an industry regulator. Interested in other thoughts here. This might gather speed with governments as a sensible step forward - and although Reding sees this as a replacement for JPA, G12 might as well exist with or without JPA as an alternative to GAC for higher level governmental involvement. Interested in what others think about this or what impressions those attending this meeting might have about the chance of this gathering momentum. In any case I am concerned about the civil society role in such a model. Ian Peter On 5/05/09 7:33 AM, "jlfullsack" wrote: Dear all In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! Jean-Louis Fullsack IP/09/696 Brussels, 4 May 2009 Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this agreement expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the internet. This would include a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an independent judicial body, as well as a "G12 for Internet Governance" ^ a multilateral forum for governments to discuss general internet governance policy and security issues. "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US government. "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world." EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the following: * A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best standards of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial transparency and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial review. * A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" ^ an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences in this field could be given observer status. On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their expectations for the future of Internet Governance. Background For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day management (see IP/06/1297 ) and has been supporting an open multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet governance and development (IP/06/1491 ). The European Commission also participates in the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy aspects of its coordination activities. Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 5 17:24:13 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 07:24:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: <018201c9cda3$e7a17010$b6e45030$@com.br> Message-ID: So here is our dilemma - Firstly, to most of us the concept of an ICANN with US Govt unilateral rights through JPA is the wrong model for the future. Here civil society and government are united ­ and indeed most of the world. We all agree something should change, and IGF¹s establishment basically attests to that. In the absence of a clear proposal of a better way to do things, governments inevitably will return to the way they usually do things in this space ­ some model of government oversight worked out with industry, and all is well. That¹s what we see being proposed now. Over time that probably sees civil society input reduced or dispensed with. If we are not happy with that model, we really have to be clear about what we think is the appropriate alternative. So let me ask the question - Is ICANN as is without the JPA an appropriate governance structure? Is it a multistakeholder model we would support? I suspect we have differing views here. I have heard it expressed that ICANN is basically a conclave of siloed interest groups. So what is multistakeholder and if it was applied to ICANN as a governance structure what would it look like and how would it be different? ­ or is multistakeholder a term of convenience and what we are seeking something entirely different? I think we need to be clear here. Ian Peter On 6/05/09 3:06 AM, "Vanda Scartezini" wrote: > Hi all > Looks like the idea of have just governments to oversee the internet brings > the real possibility to have, from ICANN side, just business activities and , > in other words ­ destroying the stakeholder model we so hard defended , back > at the first IGF movements. > I can not agree with the idea of have governments ( whatever the composition > they find to do this) in a superior stage ­ this is United Nations model and > so far I haven¹t see it can work properly. ICANN community was expecting to > run from DoC, for what? to be catch by 12 or 20 others? The only thing we > will get is more bureaucracy and less civil society participation. > Time to moveŠ > > > Vanda Scartezini > POLO Consultores Associados > & IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Carlton Samuels > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Report Public Hearing > > Ian, > This appears to be a message for the flagpole to see who salutes but even at > this stage, I share your concern. > > As I read it, the EU Commissioner's construct emphatically channel a rump of > the G20 as supplanting and increasing the role of the GAC in the current ICANN > dispensation at the expense of civil society actors, including the At-Large. > > Hopefully those from civil society groups in Brussels will make the case for a > more inclusive role for civil society. > > Carlton Samuels > The University of the West Indies ALS and member, LACRALO > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > This is an interesting if predictable development. One concern I would have if > it developed is that a fully privatised ICANN taking recommendations from a > G12 (with or without the end of the JPA) leaves civil society input to the > unpredictable channels of NCUC and ALAC, both of which could disappear in any > future review that views ICANN as an industry regulator. > > Interested in other thoughts here. This might gather speed with governments as > a sensible step forward ­ and although Reding sees this as a replacement for > JPA, G12 might as well exist with or without JPA as an alternative to GAC for > higher level governmental involvement. > > Interested in what others think about this or what impressions those attending > this meeting might have about the chance of this gathering momentum. In any > case I am concerned about the civil society role in such a model. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > On 5/05/09 7:33 AM, "jlfullsack" wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" >> to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner >> Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes >> it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited >> partipants". >> >> As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> IP/09/696 >> Brussels, 4 May 2009 >> >> Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and >> full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October >> In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- >> Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater >> transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. >> Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and >> managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit >> corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating under >> an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this agreement >> expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, Commissioner Reding >> today outlined a new governance model for the internet. This would include a >> fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an independent judicial >> body, as well as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – a multilateral forum for >> governments to discuss general internet governance policy and security >> issues. >> "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the >> respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September >> for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more >> multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane >> Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. >> And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." >> >> Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, >> when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This >> opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the >> question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." >> >> ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet >> Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address >> system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. >> ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US >> government. >> >> "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton >> administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain >> name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not >> defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight >> of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in >> countries all over the world." >> >> EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance >> could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the >> following: >> * A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best >> standards of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial >> transparency and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial >> review. >> * A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet >> governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – an >> informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a >> year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. >> This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, >> security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this >> "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each >> North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from >> Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. >> International Organisations with competences in this field could be given >> observer status. >> On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in >> Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their >> expectations for the future of Internet Governance. >> >> Background >> For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international >> discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly >> called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private >> sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day >> management (see IP/06/1297 >> > t=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr> >> > ormat=HTML&amp;aged=1&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=fr> ) and >> has been supporting an open multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet >> governance and development (IP/06/1491 >> > t=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en> >> > ormat=HTML&amp;aged=1&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en> ). The >> European Commission also participates in the Governmental Advisory Committee >> of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >> Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy >> aspects of its coordination activities. >> >> >> >> Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: >> http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm >> >> >> >> Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised >> by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the >> following link: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 5 17:30:14 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 07:30:14 +1000 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <4A003E0F.1080600@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, As discussed offlist, I'm not going to be able to make it this time, but will try to participate remotely as best I can. I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, while looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the specific model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this stage. But I wouldn't bring it up unless it is raised by EU or others. Ian Peter On 5/05/09 11:24 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Excellent reminder for us all about remote participation. I will confirm > details and post to the list. Thanks. gp > > Kabani wrote: >> Ginger, >> >> Since some of us are not travelling to Geneva, kindly if possible all >> the event that takes place should have remote participation via >> Internet so we can also participate and give our input. Perhaps, this >> was done last year as well in open consultation and MAG members have >> access to remote participation. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> Asif Kabani >> >> 2009/5/5 Ginger Paque > >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> I will be attending the Open Consultation meeting in Geneva on May >> 13th. >> >> Is there anything that you (members) want addressed at the >> meeting, besides the issue of Internet rights and principles as a >> major theme for the IGF 2009, as stated in our previous consensus: >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the >> Programme Paper: >> >> "...Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >> principles' as a >> cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for >> this >> concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open >> consultations. >> >> However we are concerned at the proposal to exclude it as a theme >> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition >> of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the >> Sharm El Sheikh meeting." >> >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that >> the MAG >> revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in >> the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of >> definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not >> possible to include this concept until it is defined within the >> IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to >> establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive >> discussions in future debates and meetings. >> >> If there is, we should be finalizing this now. Anyone? >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Visit: www.kabani.co.uk >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue May 5 17:38:51 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:38:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David Goldstein wrote : Please let Europeans comment freely on THEIR matters. I can assure you, Francis and WE know how our institutions should operate. As for me, I 'm just back from the EP sitting and that was quite an interesting day since the morning was spent to the telecom packet debate with no less than four reports on the agenda. Once more, the MEPs of any obedience criticized the absence of the Commission since only Mrs Reding attended the sitting. As for the Council there was nobody ! Further I can assure all our list members that the MEPs or their attachés I happened to meet today are angry about the to-morrow Hearing : held in Brussels during the EP plenary session at Strasbourg it's like a provocation by the Commission, especially when one considers that ten days before there was another hearing on the same theme organized by the EP ITRE Committee. There is something going wrong among our institutions ! And it's OUR right to highlight such a misfunctioning. For all these reasons WE are fed up to be considered as ignorants of OUR institutions by some outsiders (remember the "lessons" given by Roland Perry) . We only try to remind OUR parliamentarians the committment the EU and its members states have signed in Geneva and in Tunis, and what they have decided publicly since then. Further, we ask OUR political institutions (Commision, Parliament and Council) a minimum of respect to the CS -the actual one- and its organizations who are profoundly engaged in the WSIS follow-up process, WITHOUT ANY COMMERCIAL INTEREST, and mostly on their own expenses. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: David Goldstein To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Dr. Francis MUGUET Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:45 AM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements Oh grow up Francis. Just because the EU has an invitation-only event, there's no need for you to sulk. Why not contact the relevant people yourself and question them and make some suggestions. Suggesting there are ulterior motives when you have no grounds for such except paranoia is going too far. I'd suggest you are unaware of how the EU operates, or government for that matter. Governments regularly consult with people and invite them to discuss issues. We should be pleased the EU is being open with what they are doing. David ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Dr. Francis MUGUET To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 11:37:31 AM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements Hello In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if not secretive... EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case. This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the uninvited to examine why they are not invited !!! but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to themselves.... For example, one question is why Louis Pouzin, one the very few european internet pioneer is not invited... ... but he is invited in Boston... I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ? For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many other meetings going on that day. You are too kind Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross... but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? The original invitation It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of this invitation doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - strange... the agenda of the EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) includes the WSIS in the first place.... and the WSIS means the IGF !!! Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, Room DURI 09:30 Registration & coffee 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance 15:45 Coffee break 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** Theme description 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/chal enges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users wil come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. but not WSIS veterans... by the way, the list of the invited is known to the invited ? The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, whether in person, or remotely. Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann won the "first come first served" race for the name. Is it like a domain name ? !!! But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe : 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct from the IGF, possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe ( not only the EU, but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe ) I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF, and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary, and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe. It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective mandate that the IGF. This could be quite promising.... However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows as Meryem observed Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. and as Jean Louis recently posted : EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least... Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent multistakeholder IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU, to counterbalance the lobbies that seem to have taken control of the EuroIGF process Best Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journalshttp://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chairFinancing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org webInfo. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org webNET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet Explorer 8. Get it now.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 5 17:52:54 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:52:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: <018201c9cda3$e7a17010$b6e45030$@com.br> Message-ID: On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Is ICANN as is without the JPA an appropriate governance structure? yes Is it a > multistakeholder model we would support? yes -- 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue May 5 18:22:21 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:22:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG References: <03553332-A3F6-4FD8-B7C8-D5F84625D147@ras.eu.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C106241F7384D4A9211D0A5D8340DBD@PCbureau> You are perfectly right, Wolfgang. In the today's debate in the EP, and in response to the major four reports presented in the framework of the "telecom package" (Malcolm Harbour, Catherine Trautman, Pilar del Castilllo and Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar) she never mentioned the civil society nor did she even allude to multistakeholderism. In fact the only MEP asking for a multistakeholder participation in the future of the "telecom package" was Catherine Trautmann. There are no many reasons to be satisfied with the the European Institutions finishing their mandate ... so let's hope for a more CS friendly Parliament after June 6th ("I have a dream") ! Best Jean-Louis ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:55 AM Subject: AW: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG > > > There are at least five confusing omissions in Madame Redings Statement if > you compare it with the language adopted in Tunis: > > In the PDF File from her video message you will NOT find five key words > from the Tunis Compromise: "multistakeholder", "civil society", > "respective role", "enhanced cooperation", "equal footing". > > Good stuff for analysis. > > Wolfgang > > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/text/message_20090504.pdf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Tue May 5 19:41:22 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 01:41:22 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A00CEA2.8060301@mdpi.net> Dear David Your paternalistic comments are not going to hide the fact that those hearings are non inclusive, non transparent. > Oh grow up Francis. Just because the EU has an invitation-only event, > there's no need for you to sulk. Why not contact the relevant people > yourself and question them and make some suggestions. > > Suggesting there are ulterior motives when you have no grounds for > such except paranoia is going too far. I respectfully suggest that you should open your eyes. The attendees to those hearings have been hand picked to approve a draft report already written beforehan > > I'd suggest you are unaware of how the EU operates, it is exactly the reverse...; it seems that you have kept too many illusions about governments and more so , how lobbies operates... within governments and international organizations. > or government for that matter. Governments regularly consult with > people and invite them to discuss issues. We should be pleased the EU > is being open with what they are doing Best Francis > > David > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Dr. Francis MUGUET > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > *Cc:* WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 11:37:31 AM > *Subject:* Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance > arrangements > > Hello >> In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May >> 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET writes >> >>> It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if >>> not secretive... >>> EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement ( 06 >>> May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) >> >> It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not >> itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific >> organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and >> attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that >> doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case. > This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the > uninvited to examine why they are not invited !!! > but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to > themselves.... > > For example, one question is why Louis Pouzin, one the very few > european internet pioneer is not invited... > ... but he is invited in Boston... > > I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ? >> >>> For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only. >> >> My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many >> other meetings going on that day. > You are too kind > Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross... >> >> >>> but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? >> >> The original invitation > It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of > this invitation >> doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF - > > strange... the agenda of the > EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement > > ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium ) > includes the WSIS in the first place.... > and the WSIS means the IGF !!! > > *Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements * > 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 > Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, Room DURI > > > /09:30 Registration & coffee / > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > /13.00 Lunch / > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > /15:45 Coffee break / > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > *Theme description * > 1. *WSIS*: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation > of WSIS principles? What are the > new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? > 2. *Security & stability* of the Internet remains a key EU priority. > What are the main threats/chal enges? > What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to > their international dimension? > 3. *The role of public authorities*: How should public authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their > responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our > economies and societies? What lessons, > if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should > self-regulation for critical infrastructures > and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant > public authorities)? To what > extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and > public policy making > complementary and necessary components for the effective management of > the Internet? > 4. *Accountability and legitimacy*: To what extent are self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to > Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the > fact that many Internet users do > not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it > necessary to make governance > fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, > how? > 5. *Internationalisation of Internet Governance: *Is it desirable or > necessary to ensure fair participation of > actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the > future shaping of the Internet and if > so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a > particular legal system or > jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction > concerned? > 6. *Digital divide*: The future billions of users wil come largely > from developing countries. Should the > existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this > evolution and, if so, how? Should > the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be > represented in the policy making > processes and, if so, how? > > >> even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. > but not WSIS veterans... by the way, the list of the invited is known > to the invited ? > >>> The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded >>> European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process, >>> whether in person, or remotely. >> >> Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are IGF's springing >> up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann >> won the "first come first served" race for the name. > Is it like a domain name ? !!! >> But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before). > There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe : > > 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct > from the IGF, > possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission > > 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe > ( not only the EU, but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe ) > > I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF, > and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary, > and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe. > > It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective > mandate that the IGF. This could be quite promising.... > However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows > > as Meryem observed > /Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) > as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. / > and as Jean Louis recently posted : > /EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting > (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and > endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants". > / > The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least... > > Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent > multistakeholder > IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU, to counterbalance > the lobbies that seem to have taken control of the EuroIGF process > > Best > > Francis > / > / > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D > > MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals > http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net > muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > > ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org > 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE > Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 > muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet > > PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org > > World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) > Civil Society Working Groups > Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair > Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair > Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web > Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web > > NET4D : http://www.net4D.org > UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org > WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Legal notice : > Except stated explicitely, > this message shall not be construed as the official position > of above mentionned entities > > Notice légale ; > A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, > ce message ne constitue la position officielle > des entités mentionnées ci-dessos > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet > Explorer 8. Get it now. > . -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA/KNIS http://knis.org 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ Legal notice : Except stated explicitely, this message shall not be construed as the official position of above mentionned entities Notice légale ; A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué, ce message ne constitue la position officielle des entités mentionnées ci-dessos ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 6 00:59:27 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:59:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] US Needs Digital Warfare Force? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Hi all, > > I just read this on the BBC website and feel others could read before for > comments. It seems like the US is looking for another veto power, this time > over Internet and the freedom of expression enabler that this tool is. I don't see how you get that from this story at all. What they seem to want is the ability to counter cyber attacks (presumably by cyber means). Let's keep the rhetoric down to a reasonable level. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed May 6 01:14:23 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 22:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Needs Digital Warfare Force? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <924883.33155.qm@web58905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Totally agree... this time we have to say the Americans are not at fault and are currently playing catch up to ensure everything from electricity grids to air traffic control (although much of America's air traffic control is so antiquated it's not connected to the internet) are safe from cyber warfare. I've been posting plenty of stories on this on my website - new URL is http://goldsteinreport.com/ for anyone who cares - and these issues have been going on for months now, getting more and more prominent. A couple of recent interesting stories on this are: EC's Reding urges preventive action against cyberattacks [IDG] Europe needs a "Mister cyber security" to take control in the event of an attack on Internet infrastructure, Europe's telecommunications commissioner, Viviane Reding said Monday. http://computerworld.com.au/article/300856/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/163888/.html http://pcworld.idg.com.au/article/300856/ EU Commissioner Reding calls for preventive action to make the EU resilient against cyber attacks [news release] In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, the European Union's Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called on Member States to act to ensure that Europe's electronic communication networks are well protected. While being the backbone of most other crucial services, such as energy and water distribution, air and road traffic control or banking, European critical information infrastructures are themselves under constant threat of technical breakdowns and cyber attacks. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/199 Panel Warns U.S. on Cyberwar Plans The United States has no clear military policy about how the nation might respond to a cyberattack on its communications, financial or power networks, a panel of scientists and policy advisers warned Wednesday, and the country needs to clarify both its offensive capabilities and how it would respond to such attacks. http://nytimes.com/2009/04/30/science/30cyber.html David ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Sent: Wednesday, 6 May, 2009 2:59:27 PM Subject: Re: [governance] US Needs Digital Warfare Force? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Hi all, > > I just read this on the BBC website and feel others could read before for > comments. It seems like the US is looking for another veto power, this time > over Internet and the freedom of expression enabler that this tool is. I don't see how you get that from this story at all. What they seem to want is the ability to counter cyber attacks (presumably by cyber means). Let's keep the rhetoric down to a reasonable level. -- 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 Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet Explorer 8.Get it now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed May 6 03:58:37 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 14:58:37 +0700 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70905060058s31ec02fbuba5528c8b0668eb1@mail.gmail.com> Frankly speaking I don't see any of this happening. Would you really consider the fact that there is nothing already planned for ICANN prior to the agreement's end in September? Secondly, does the EU Commissioner have consent of the multistakeholders that form the ICANN governance through any prior consultation? I can't find evidence on such. Really? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:33 AM, jlfullsack wrote: > Dear all > > In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" > to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner > Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and > proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the > "invited partipants". > > As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > IP/09/696 > > Brussels, 4 May 2009 > > Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and > full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October > > In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- > Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater > transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. > Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and > managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit > corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating > under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this > agreement expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, > Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the internet. > This would include a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an > independent judicial body, as well as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – a > multilateral forum for governments to discuss general internet governance > policy and security issues. > > "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the > respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September > for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more > multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane > Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. > And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." > > Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, > when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This > opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the > question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." > > ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet > Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address > system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. > ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US > government. > > "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton > administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain > name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not > defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight > of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in > countries all over the world." > > EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance > could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the > following: > > A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best standards > of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial transparency > and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial review. > A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet > governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – an > informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a > year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. > This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, > security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this > "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each > North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from > Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. > International Organisations with competences in this field could be given > observer status. > > On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in > Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their > expectations for the future of Internet Governance. > > Background > > For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international > discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly > called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private > sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day > management (see IP/06/1297) and has been supporting an open > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet governance and development > (IP/06/1491). The European Commission also participates in the Governmental > Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy > aspects of its coordination activities. > > Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: > > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised > by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the > following link: > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed May 6 04:58:27 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:58:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, On May 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > As discussed offlist, I'm not going to be able to make it this time, > but > will try to participate remotely as best I can. Sorry you can't make it Ian but glad to hear Ginger can. Perhaps it would be useful to know who's coming and whether we want to organize the usual caucus lunch on Wednesday to coordinate. > > > I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU > proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, > while > looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the > specific > model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this > stage. Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? Hopefully after the meeting in Brussels attendees can fill us in on any clarifications and then we can see what if anything the caucus could agree on? > > > > But I wouldn't bring it up unless it is raised by EU or others. Agree Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed May 6 08:50:44 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:50:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report Public Hearing In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905060058s31ec02fbuba5528c8b0668eb1@mail.gmail.com> References: ,<701af9f70905060058s31ec02fbuba5528c8b0668eb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1C6C8ECE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Fouad, 'End' of JPA Oct. 1 is a possibility; probability (in my opinion) is a continuation. Before and after Oct. 1 there will be lots of discussions, hence the EU/Reding move to advocate sticking to deadline and completing privatization/liberation of ICANN from direct government oversight, with soft oversight from G12 and a novel hard judicial review mechanism being set up. Odds of that happening may be low; odds of agreement on all that before Oct. 1 is even lower. In any case, the post-JPA games have seriously begun; I believe CS has to play too. So Ian's call for more discussion on what more precisely CS would want to see, and what practical steps could get us there, is right on target I believe. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Report Public Hearing Frankly speaking I don't see any of this happening. Would you really consider the fact that there is nothing already planned for ICANN prior to the agreement's end in September? Secondly, does the EU Commissioner have consent of the multistakeholders that form the ICANN governance through any prior consultation? I can't find evidence on such. Really? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:33 AM, jlfullsack wrote: > Dear all > > In order to save a great amount of carbon dioxyde emission for the "public" > to travel to Brussels for attending the May 6th Hearing, EU Commissioner > Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting (draft) Report and > proposes it for possible minor amendments and endorsement (see below) by the > "invited partipants". > > As Meryem would say : Enjoy ! > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > IP/09/696 > > Brussels, 4 May 2009 > > Internet Governance: EU Commissioner Reding calls for full privatisation and > full accountability of ICANN as of 1 October > > In a video posted on her website this morning, Viviane Reding, EU- > Commissioner for Information Society and Media, called for greater > transparency and accountability in Internet Governance as of October 2009. > Key decisions related to Internet Governance, like top level domains and > managing the internet's core directory, are currently made by the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private not-for profit > corporation established in California. So far, ICANN has been operating > under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. However, this > agreement expires on 30 September this year. For the time after, > Commissioner Reding today outlined a new governance model for the internet. > This would include a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an > independent judicial body, as well as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – a > multilateral forum for governments to discuss general internet governance > policy and security issues. > > "I trust that President Obama will have the courage, the wisdom and the > respect for the global nature of the internet to pave the way in September > for a new, more accountable, more transparent, more democratic and more > multilateral form of Internet Governance," said EU Commissioner Viviane > Reding in her Internet video message this morning. "The time to act is now. > And Europe will be ready to support President Obama in his efforts." > > Reding stressed that "a moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, > when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This > opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN; and it also raises the > question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October." > > ICANN deals with some of most sensitive issues related to Internet > Governance, such as top level domains or management of the internet address > system that ensures that millions of computers can connect to each other. > ICANN was established in 1998 in California, under an agreement with the US > government. > > "Accountability of ICANN is a must," said Reding. "The Clinton > administration's decision to progressively privatize the internet's domain > name and addressing system is the right one. In the long run, it is not > defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight > of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in > countries all over the world." > > EU Commissioner Reding also outlined how a new model of Internet Governance > could be shaped after 30 September. It could include in particular the > following: > > A fully privatised and independent ICANN complying with the best standards > of corporate governance, in particular with those on financial transparency > and internal accountability, and subject to effective judicial review. > A multilateral forum where governments can discuss general internet > governance policy issues, such as a "G12 for Internet Governance" – an > informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a > year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. > This group would provide swift reaction in case of threats to the stability, > security and openness of the internet. To be geographically balanced, this > "G-12 for Internet Governance" would include two representatives from each > North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from > Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. > International Organisations with competences in this field could be given > observer status. > > On 6 May, the European Commission will host a first public hearing in > Brussels to give Europe's Internet Community a chance to voice their > expectations for the future of Internet Governance. > > Background > > For many years, the European Union has played a major role in international > discussions on Internet Governance. The European Commission has repeatedly > called for a system of internet governance fully entrusted to the private > sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day > management (see IP/06/1297) and has been supporting an open > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on internet governance and development > (IP/06/1491). The European Commission also participates in the Governmental > Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN), whose main purpose is to advise ICANN on public policy > aspects of its coordination activities. > > Commissioner Reding's video message is available at: > > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm > > Further information on the public hearing on Internet Governance, organised > by the European Commission on 6 May in Brussels will be available at the > following link: > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 7 00:15:27 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:45:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A02605F.3050108@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: >> >> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >> while >> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the >> specific >> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >> stage. (Ian) > > Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it > there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with > respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight > G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or > how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather > than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could > become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and > implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of > nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of > devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? > (Bill) I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which of course is important. More important however is having some idea about our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and communicating them. I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International Tribunal adjudicating ICAN related issues rather than Californian courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored a workshop on 'Trans-national Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that need adjudication came up.. Now when there is a clear proposal by one of the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area. Has anyone a better suggestion? I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related issues of global IG. That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the best way to go forward on this. The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be present in a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose, but about this later.) Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries. This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20 etc but more like UN bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification. However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this. Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present are 'solved', if at all, in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/ or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model. And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EU-HLIG-Submission.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59904 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 7 02:31:57 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 16:31:57 +1000 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <4A02605F.3050108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Well I have more problems with the model than you do Parminder. A few comments interspersed below. On 7/05/09 2:15 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > William Drake wrote: >>> >>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >>> while >>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the >>> specific >>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >>> stage. (Ian) >> >> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it >> there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with >> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight >> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or >> how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather >> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could >> become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and >> implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of >> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of >> devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? >> (Bill) > > I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a > lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill > lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of > getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which > of course is important. More important however is having some idea about > our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and > communicating them. Agreed. > > I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International > Tribunal adjudicating ICAN related issues rather than Californian > courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which > case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored a workshop on 'Trans-national > Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that > need adjudication came up.. Most of those issues from my memory were about cybercrime. I would not like to see cybercrime type issues mixed up with ICANN style administrative issues on domain management. >Now when there is a clear proposal by one of > the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU > backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what > obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area. > Has anyone a better suggestion? > > I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A > single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea > of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related > issues of global IG. I have a problem with this word related, because I have a problem with the mandate of ICANN being extended into related areas. I don't think ICANN is the model for cybercrime, and to be honest I would like to see its mandate smaller rather than larger. Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs some better structures. In ICANN this used to be the thick vs thin ICANN model debate - I am definitely on the side of thin. > > That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to > analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a > common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our > issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the > best way to go forward on this. > > The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society > come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by > suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is > important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society > participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be > present in a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would > that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that > the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives > credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on > the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose, > but about this later.) > > Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries. > This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20 etc but more like UN > bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I > think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification. > However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more > representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if > it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this. I am happy for governmental input to be G12 or G20 or whatever they agree to. What concerns me more is the model that leans towards an industry body with a government regulator. We have lots of these in most countries. That to me would be a huge backward step for the transboundary issues, but I suspect it might be the way the model might evolve unless we look at why that's not appropriate in this space. > > Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very > narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other > key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present > are 'solved', if at all, in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving > the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do > include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that > Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global > governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/ > or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The > enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very > good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked > other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument > I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to > be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model. As I said I favour the thin ICANN model. I think a lot more analysis of issues and appropriate governance structures for areas needs to be undertaken. Consumer input is particularly important here, there are a range of other civil society issues that need a vehicle for input as structures evolve. > > And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy > body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this > too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view. > I would think that if the "thick" G12 model was adopted and ICANN acquiesced to that IGF might close down. I think that would be very problematic because ICANN cannot and should not deal with a lot of the issues that need to be addressed. > Parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 7 03:15:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:45:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A028A80.1000709@itforchange.net> Thanks for the response Ian. I am a bit occupied and will give more detailed comments a little later. However I want to make it clear right away that no one is suggesting that ICANN's remit be broadened. Not at all. We are talking about a global Internet council like body which will do the oversight of ICANN and the nature its remit. The two are very different issues. Pl see the paper by Milton I enclosed in my last email to see how oversight of ICANN is connected to all other public policy issues in the area of Internet. Also pl see WGIG report for models 1 and 3 where such an ICANN oversight body takes up other public policy issues, so it is not that people do not generally understand that the linkage is important. To state it in short, and using your terms, it is not about thick or thin ICANN, it is about 'thick' or 'thin' ICANN oversight models, which are two very different things. > Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs some better structures. Yes, for ICANN, names and numbers are enough. No one is proposing going beyond that. The main problem is about what you call as 'the rest' needing better structures (1) this 'rest' is the important issue and we need to be talking about what could be 'better structures' now, and (2) importantly, this 'rest' is connected to oversight of names and numbers as Milton argues, which is the whole logic of oversight (if these other public policy issues were not connected in some way to names and numbers then no one will have any problems letting ICANN do what it does without any oversight). parminder Ian Peter wrote: > Well I have more problems with the model than you do Parminder. A few > comments interspersed below. > > > > > On 7/05/09 2:15 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > >> William Drake wrote: >> >>>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >>>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >>>> while >>>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the >>>> specific >>>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >>>> stage. (Ian) >>>> >>> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it >>> there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with >>> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight >>> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or >>> how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather >>> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could >>> become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and >>> implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of >>> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of >>> devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? >>> (Bill) >>> >> I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a >> lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill >> lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of >> getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which >> of course is important. More important however is having some idea about >> our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and >> communicating them. >> > > Agreed. > >> I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International >> Tribunal adjudicating ICAN related issues rather than Californian >> courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which >> case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored a workshop on 'Trans-national >> Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that >> need adjudication came up.. >> > > Most of those issues from my memory were about cybercrime. I would not like > to see cybercrime type issues mixed up with ICANN style administrative > issues on domain management. > > >> Now when there is a clear proposal by one of >> the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU >> backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what >> obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area. >> Has anyone a better suggestion? >> > > >> I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A >> single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea >> of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related >> issues of global IG. >> > > I have a problem with this word related, because I have a problem with the > mandate of ICANN being extended into related areas. I don't think ICANN is > the model for cybercrime, and to be honest I would like to see its mandate > smaller rather than larger. Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs > some better structures. In ICANN this used to be the thick vs thin ICANN > model debate - I am definitely on the side of thin. > > >> That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to >> analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a >> common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our >> issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the >> best way to go forward on this. >> >> The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society >> come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by >> suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is >> important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society >> participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be >> present in a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would >> that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that >> the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives >> credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on >> the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose, >> but about this later.) >> >> Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries. >> This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20 etc but more like UN >> bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I >> think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification. >> However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more >> representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if >> it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this. >> > > I am happy for governmental input to be G12 or G20 or whatever they agree > to. What concerns me more is the model that leans towards an industry body > with a government regulator. We have lots of these in most countries. That > to me would be a huge backward step for the transboundary issues, but I > suspect it might be the way the model might evolve unless we look at why > that's not appropriate in this space. > > > >> Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very >> narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other >> key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present >> are 'solved', if at all, in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving >> the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do >> include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that >> Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global >> governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/ >> or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The >> enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very >> good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked >> other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument >> I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to >> be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model. >> > > As I said I favour the thin ICANN model. I think a lot more analysis of > issues and appropriate governance structures for areas needs to be > undertaken. Consumer input is particularly important here, there are a range > of other civil society issues that need a vehicle for input as structures > evolve. > > >> And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy >> body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this >> too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view. >> >> > > I would think that if the "thick" G12 model was adopted and ICANN acquiesced > to that IGF might close down. I think that would be very problematic because > ICANN cannot and should not deal with a lot of the issues that need to be > addressed. > > > >> Parminder >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu May 7 04:05:47 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:05:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02605F.3050108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <73179251C7154F68A94BEC325AED2C10@PCbureau> Dear Parminder I think you give us (I mean the CS committed in post-WSIS and FGI process) the "good track" and a suitable focus for the discussions to come. I support your valuable input and agree on the questions you raised, particularly on the way CS should be present, active and effective in the "post-ICANN" Internet governance. Best Jean-Louis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parminder" To: ; "William Drake" Cc: "Ian Peter" ; "Ginger Paque" Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? > > William Drake wrote: >>> >>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >>> while >>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the >>> specific >>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >>> stage. (Ian) >> >> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it >> there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with >> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight >> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or >> how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather >> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could >> become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and >> implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of >> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of >> devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? >> (Bill) > > I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a > lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill > lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of > getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which > of course is important. More important however is having some idea about > our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and > communicating them. > > I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International > Tribunal adjudicating ICAN related issues rather than Californian > courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which > case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored a workshop on 'Trans-national > Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that > need adjudication came up.. Now when there is a clear proposal by one of > the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU > backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what > obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area. > Has anyone a better suggestion? > > I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A > single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea > of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related > issues of global IG. > > That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to > analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a > common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our > issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the > best way to go forward on this. > > The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society > come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by > suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is > important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society > participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be > present in a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would > that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that > the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives > credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on > the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose, > but about this later.) > > Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries. > This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20 etc but more like UN > bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I > think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification. > However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more > representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if > it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this. > > Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very > narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other > key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present > are 'solved', if at all, in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving > the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do > include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that > Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global > governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/ > or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The > enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very > good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked > other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument > I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to > be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model. > > And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy > body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this > too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view. > > Parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 7 05:10:08 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:10:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> Hi all, it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not be happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral equivalent. The questions that bothers me is 1. how a multi-stakeholder model could still have some teeth (non-state actors usually lack the authority for binding decisions) 2. how a multi-stakeholder model could still be independent of ICANN. I am sure ICANN would try to be part of the body supposed to oversee ICANN. Within a multi-stakeholder framework, I don't see on what grounds this could be prevented. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On May 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Ginger, >> >> As discussed offlist, I'm not going to be able to make it this time, but >> will try to participate remotely as best I can. > > Sorry you can't make it Ian but glad to hear Ginger can. Perhaps it > would be useful to know who's coming and whether we want to organize the > usual caucus lunch on Wednesday to coordinate. >> >> >> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >> while >> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the specific >> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >> stage. > > Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it > there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with respect > to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight G12 > pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or how > decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather than > broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could become > a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and > implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of > nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of > devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? > > Hopefully after the meeting in Brussels attendees can fill us in on any > clarifications and then we can see what if anything the caucus could > agree on? >> >> >> >> But I wouldn't bring it up unless it is raised by EU or others. > > Agree > > Cheers, > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 7 05:42:45 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:42:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] remote participation model Message-ID: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/index.php?home=remote video, audio, jabber, real time transcription, FB, LinkedIn, Twitter, RSS, etc. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 7 07:05:44 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:05:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not be > happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral > equivalent. Agreed. The questions that bothers me is > 1. how a multi-stakeholder model could still have some teeth (non-state > actors usually lack the authority for binding decisions) > 2. how a multi-stakeholder model could still be independent of ICANN. I am > sure ICANN would try to be part of the body supposed to oversee ICANN. > Within a multi-stakeholder framework, I don't see on what grounds this could > be prevented. Won't CS have the most oversight over ICANN by electing as many CS reps on the ICANN BoD as is possible? That's the model I prefer! -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 7 07:14:10 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:14:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A02C282.4040304@wzb.eu> McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not be >> happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral >> equivalent. > > Agreed. > > The questions that bothers me is >> 1. how a multi-stakeholder model could still have some teeth (non-state >> actors usually lack the authority for binding decisions) >> 2. how a multi-stakeholder model could still be independent of ICANN. I am >> sure ICANN would try to be part of the body supposed to oversee ICANN. >> Within a multi-stakeholder framework, I don't see on what grounds this could >> be prevented. > > Won't CS have the most oversight over ICANN by electing as many CS > reps on the ICANN BoD as is possible? That's the model I prefer! No, I think that any organization with regulatory authority needs external oversight. jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 7 07:18:08 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:18:08 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: References: <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1f9674ed0905070418t34fb6865ybd5c55b1fb83e280@mail.gmail.com> Jean-Louis, Francis, please remember that regalian, civil, private, international governance communities identified by the WSIS necessarily interfere with creeds, cultures, national strategies, financial interests, experience, and (most of all) degree of adminance (technical governance) comprehension and influence. This means that Perry and David have many axiologic underestandings and basic interests which differ from yours and ours. They are legitimate when they try to influence us. If we know our job and what we want, why would we care? David and Perry, our real problem is that EU seems to be in a phase where they try to sell us an agreement we already suffered from in Tunis when it was worked out by Martin Boyle and David Gross. This agreement, which is now partly expressed by Vivian Redhering, consists in believing EU will outsmart the USA, ourselves, ISOC, and the Australian influence in ICANN and in the other parties agreeing to making them beleive they are correct, while they try to adjust together. This agreement delayed Europe (hence the whole Internet) and defeated the hopes of most in Tunis. The Redhering communication is just a repetition of Martin Boyle's one before Tunis. The resulting 9/30 deal will be the same. The Zbig formula - international collaboration coordinated by the USA "through" a sock puppet. Chris Dispain and AU for ccTLDs, may be Catherine Trautman and EU for the Governments. The question is to know if this is better for the internet users and the people of the world than with a Tunis multistakeholder model legacy that was unable in four years to lead us anywhere. What is interesting is that initiatives like the PSOC (Louis Pouzin, John Day) [http://psoc.org] or the IUCG/IETF (france at large and other lead users) [http://iucg.org] may in the very meanwhile change what you call the Internet so much that the whole thing will have to be made again. These are the "emergences" foreseen by the WSIS that should be covered by dynamic coalitions and managed through enhanced cooperations. There is actually not much interest in the ICANN "enhanced operations" if they become foreign to the real people's and users' world. The proper of innovation is that the more you settle, the more you stay behind. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Thu May 7 10:07:30 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:37:30 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A02EB22.9000709@gmail.com> Hello everyone, Is it possible to program a breakfast meeting on Wednesday, before the meeting starts? Any suggestions? Otherwise, yes, please, let's meet for lunch. And during the meeting, can we please have a Skype chat conference going, with people in Geneva and remote? Will we repeat the same statement on Internet rights and principles as sent previously to the Secretariat, or draft a new one? Can we draft a very short statement to have ready in case the ICANN/EU subject comes up? This would not be used if the topic does not arise. Chengatai has promised to get back to me with RP details for the OC. It would be good to have Ian and as many others as possible present by RP. By now most of you have realized that as co-coordinator, I am a clerk/spokesperson/moderator following group orders, I am not a policy maker, nor, of course should I be. But for Ian and I to be effective, I need clear consensus on our stance. Please help us synthesize our objectives for this meeting. Thanks! Best, Ginger Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not > be happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a > multilateral equivalent. The questions that bothers me is > 1. how a multi-stakeholder model could still have some teeth > (non-state actors usually lack the authority for binding decisions) > 2. how a multi-stakeholder model could still be independent of ICANN. > I am sure ICANN would try to be part of the body supposed to oversee > ICANN. Within a multi-stakeholder framework, I don't see on what > grounds this could be prevented. > > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On May 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Hi Ginger, >>> >>> As discussed offlist, I'm not going to be able to make it this time, >>> but >>> will try to participate remotely as best I can. >> >> Sorry you can't make it Ian but glad to hear Ginger can. Perhaps it >> would be useful to know who's coming and whether we want to organize >> the usual caucus lunch on Wednesday to coordinate. >>> >>> >>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU >>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, >>> while >>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the >>> specific >>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this >>> stage. >> >> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it >> there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with >> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight >> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or >> how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather >> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process >> could become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to >> and implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of >> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process >> of devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other >> aspects...? >> >> Hopefully after the meeting in Brussels attendees can fill us in on >> any clarifications and then we can see what if anything the caucus >> could agree on? >>> >>> >>> >>> But I wouldn't bring it up unless it is raised by EU or others. >> >> Agree >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu May 7 12:47:47 2009 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:47:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <1f9674ed0905070418t34fb6865ybd5c55b1fb83e280@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> <9xQXRAaCWy+JFA6O@perry.co.uk> <49FDDECC.5060004@mdpi.net> <49FF985B.10700@mdpi.net> <164827.75928.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <1f9674ed0905070418t34fb6865ybd5c55b1fb83e280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090507164747.GA10592@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:18:08PM +0200, JFC Morfin wrote a message of 51 lines which said: > What is interesting is that initiatives like the PSOC (Louis Pouzin, > John Day) [http://psoc.org] Yes, excellent initiative: http://psoc.org/ Welcome to the Palmetto Ski and Outing Club (PSOC) Written by PSOC Webmaster We are a year-around outdoor activities and social club composed of singles, couples, and families of all ages. The club also produces The Piper, a monthly publication that contains event and activity information as well as advertising. Please contact any Board Member for membership information, advertising rates, event information or with any ideas, comments, or questions that you may have concerning this page or the Palmetto Ski & Outing Club. If you are not a member, I hope you will consider joining us. The Palmetto Ski & Outing Club is a member of the Crescent Ski Council. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 7 15:48:41 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 05:48:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] New MAG announced Message-ID: Just noticed the new MAG has been announced at www.intgovforum.org. On a first look we have at least two new members from IGC ­ Fouad Bajwa and Katitza Rod. Congratulations to both, excellent choices! However we also see Ken Lohento and Robin Gross finishing their terms, so it would appear our numbers are much the same. Thanks to both for your inputs on our behalf. Another term finished is that of Bertrand de La Chappelle ­ although a government rep these days, Bertrand is a long time participant here and I am sure his constructive input will be missed. Among ongoing representatives we have Qusai Al Shatti, Valeria Betancourt, Jeanette Hofmann, YJ Park, Natasha Primo, and Graciela Saleiman. I may have missed some names there, but it is good to see some new members from our group and a large number of our representatives retained. Congratulations to all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu May 7 16:03:35 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 03:03:35 +0700 Subject: [governance] New MAG announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70905071303p5d8b888dr90d79ac6139631ea@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian and all members, I would like to thank everyone and appreciate the transparent process that has given me the opportunity to be part of this important group from IGC. I assure you all that I will try my level best to justify my role and work in this position. I would also like to add my words of recognition in support of Ian's to those finishing term. I feel that this is indeed a very prominent opportunity for the Free and Open Source Software FOSS movement as a FOSS advocate has been selected amongst the MAG. Once again thank you everyone. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just noticed the new MAG has been announced at www.intgovforum.org. On a > first look we have at least two new members from IGC – Fouad Bajwa and > Katitza Rod. Congratulations to both, excellent choices! However we also see > Ken Lohento and Robin Gross finishing their terms, so it would appear our > numbers are much the same. Thanks to both for your inputs on our behalf. > Another term finished is that of Bertrand de La Chappelle – although a > government rep these days, Bertrand is a long time participant here and I am > sure his constructive input will be missed. Among ongoing representatives we > have Qusai Al Shatti, Valeria Betancourt, Jeanette Hofmann, YJ Park, Natasha > Primo, and Graciela Saleiman. > > I may have missed some names there, but it is good to see some new members > from our group and a large number of our representatives retained. > Congratulations to all! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 7 16:42:45 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 23:42:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: <4A02C282.4040304@wzb.eu> References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> <4A02C282.4040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > McTim wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not be >>> happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral >>> equivalent. I agree with this, but fail to see what you prefer if you don't want unilateral oversight, multilateral oversight or no "external oversight". McTim: >> Won't CS have the most oversight over ICANN by electing as many CS >> reps on the ICANN BoD as is possible? That's the model I prefer! > Jeanette > No, I think that any organization with regulatory authority needs external > oversight. Does the ITU have external oversight? Does the UN? My experience in Internet resource policy making in the RIR communities suggests that internal oversight, by members of the community is sufficient. That's the model that I seek post JPA. -- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Fri May 8 05:41:54 2009 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:41:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting Message-ID: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> Hi everyone I realise that there is quite some demand for the lunchtime slot May 13th, but I hope some of the caucus members will be able to join APC, the COE and UNECE in the next consultation on: "A Code of good practice on public participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance" The meeting will take place in Salle VII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, during lunch session of May 13th. Lunch will be provided. The meeting will provide a good enviroment for raising some concerns in relation to the EC proposal and JPA which have been discussed on the list recently. Attached is a letter of invitation, agenda and a summary of David Souter's second research report which will form the basis of presentation and discussion during the meeting. The report reviews the governance, information and participation practices of twelve "entities" which are primarily or extensively concerned with internet governance; includes assessments of the similarities among and differences between them in five main areas and identifies significant tensions and challenges to information and participation practice which are posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are discussed in some depth, but are summarised in the form of questions for discussion between the project and the internet governance community. The report suggests that these questions could form the basis for discussion about appropriate principles for information and participation in the internet. We hope you can join us for the meeting and look forward to seeing those of you who will be in Geneva, next week. karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PP_Summary_Souter.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 48640 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PPIF_IG_code_informal_cons_13_May_2009.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 390791 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PPIG 13 May 09 Geneva draft agenda fin v2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 95066 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Fri May 8 05:48:31 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 15:18:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] New MAG announced In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905071303p5d8b888dr90d79ac6139631ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905071303p5d8b888dr90d79ac6139631ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A03FFEF.3070108@itforchange.net> Dear Fouad and Katitza, Congratulations!! and all the best!! regards Guru Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Ian and all members, > > I would like to thank everyone and appreciate the transparent process > that has given me the opportunity to be part of this important group > from IGC. I assure you all that I will try my level best to justify my > role and work in this position. > > I would also like to add my words of recognition in support of Ian's > to those finishing term. > > I feel that this is indeed a very prominent opportunity for the Free > and Open Source Software FOSS movement as a FOSS advocate has been > selected amongst the MAG. Once again thank you everyone. > > Best Regards > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Just noticed the new MAG has been announced at www.intgovforum.org. On a >> first look we have at least two new members from IGC – Fouad Bajwa and >> Katitza Rod. Congratulations to both, excellent choices! However we also see >> Ken Lohento and Robin Gross finishing their terms, so it would appear our >> numbers are much the same. Thanks to both for your inputs on our behalf. >> Another term finished is that of Bertrand de La Chappelle – although a >> government rep these days, Bertrand is a long time participant here and I am >> sure his constructive input will be missed. Among ongoing representatives we >> have Qusai Al Shatti, Valeria Betancourt, Jeanette Hofmann, YJ Park, Natasha >> Primo, and Graciela Saleiman. >> >> I may have missed some names there, but it is good to see some new members >> from our group and a large number of our representatives retained. >> Congratulations to all! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://India.IS-Watch.net http://IS-Watch.net http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From david.souter at runbox.com Fri May 8 05:53:01 2009 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:53:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting In-Reply-To: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi: Was Heather Creech on the list of invitees? If not, I think she'd be a useful addition. (I'm not sure if she's planning to be in Geneva, but she usually attends, and I know Don MacLean won't be there this time.) David ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:41:54 +0100 From: karen banks To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting > > Hi everyone I realise that there is quite some demand for the lunchtime slot May 13th, but I hope some of the caucus members will be able to join APC, the COE and UNECE in the next consultation on: "A Code of good practice on public participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance" The meeting will take place in Salle VII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, during lunch session of May 13th. Lunch will be provided. The meeting will provide a good enviroment for raising some concerns in relation to the EC proposal and JPA which have been discussed on the list recently. Attached is a letter of invitation, agenda and a summary of David Souter's second research report which will form the basis of presentation and discussion during the meeting. The report reviews the governance, information and participation practices of twelve "entities" which are primarily or extensively concerned with internet governance; includes assessments of the similarities among and differences between them in five main areas and identifies significant tensions and challenges to information and participation practice which are posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are discussed in some depth, but are summarised in the form of questions for discussion between the project and the internet governance community. The report suggests that these questions could form the basis for discussion about appropriate principles for information and participation in the internet. We hope you can join us for the meeting and look forward to seeing those of you who will be in Geneva, next week. karen ----- End Original Message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From david.souter at runbox.com Fri May 8 05:53:56 2009 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:53:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting In-Reply-To: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Apologies for last (automated) mispost of message to Karen Banks. ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:41:54 +0100 From: karen banks To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting > > Hi everyone I realise that there is quite some demand for the lunchtime slot May 13th, but I hope some of the caucus members will be able to join APC, the COE and UNECE in the next consultation on: "A Code of good practice on public participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance" The meeting will take place in Salle VII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, during lunch session of May 13th. Lunch will be provided. The meeting will provide a good enviroment for raising some concerns in relation to the EC proposal and JPA which have been discussed on the list recently. Attached is a letter of invitation, agenda and a summary of David Souter's second research report which will form the basis of presentation and discussion during the meeting. The report reviews the governance, information and participation practices of twelve "entities" which are primarily or extensively concerned with internet governance; includes assessments of the similarities among and differences between them in five main areas and identifies significant tensions and challenges to information and participation practice which are posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are discussed in some depth, but are summarised in the form of questions for discussion between the project and the internet governance community. The report suggests that these questions could form the basis for discussion about appropriate principles for information and participation in the internet. We hope you can join us for the meeting and look forward to seeing those of you who will be in Geneva, next week. karen ----- End Original Message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri May 8 06:50:29 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:50:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting In-Reply-To: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0905080350r6fc64946l90aa10f19aa0174f@mail.gmail.com> HI Karen, Will be happy to join. Good initiative. Will be an opportunity to clarify some aspects of the "EC proposal" to avoid misunderstandings, in particular, the personal nature of the video message made by Commissioner Reding. Looking forward to seeing you all. Bertrand On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:41 AM, karen banks wrote: > Hi everyone > > I realise that there is quite some demand for the lunchtime slot May 13th, > but I hope some of the caucus members will be able to join APC, the COE and > UNECE in the next consultation on: > > "A Code of good practice on public participation, access to information and > transparency in Internet governance" > > The meeting will take place in Salle VII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, > during lunch session of May 13th. Lunch will be provided. > > The meeting will provide a good enviroment for raising some concerns in > relation to the EC proposal and JPA which have been discussed on the list > recently. > > Attached is a letter of invitation, agenda and a summary of David Souter's > second research report which will form the basis of presentation and > discussion during the meeting. > > The report reviews the governance, information and participation practices > of twelve "entities" which are primarily or extensively concerned with > internet governance; includes assessments of the similarities among and > differences between them in five main areas and identifies significant > tensions and challenges to information and participation practice which are > posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are discussed > in some depth, but are summarised in the form of questions for discussion > between the project and the internet governance community. > > The report suggests that these questions could form the basis for > discussion about appropriate principles for information and participation in > the internet. > > We hope you can join us for the meeting and look forward to seeing those of > you who will be in Geneva, next week. > > karen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 8 07:27:55 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 13:27:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] EC IG Hearing References: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> <954259bd0905080350r6fc64946l90aa10f19aa0174f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F09@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list additionally to Christopher Wilkinsions short first report here are some additional reflections about the hearing: 1. the good thing is that the Commission is now moving, although it is still unclear in what direction. My impression is that the High Level Group, where only the 27 member states are represented, have no consensus and are searching for a unified position. Insofar the Hearing was a good opportunity to let them know what the various stakeholders think about it. 2. Multistakeholderism is still not internalized into the Commission approach. While in theory the Commission supports the principle it has difficulties to translate this principle into their own internal procedures and understandings of PDP. There is also a mixed approach to civil society. They want to have them in but they do not have a real clue and strategy how and who. 3. There is a broad and 100 per cent consensus amont member states and the european community (at least the groups represented in the room) that the IGF is a good thing, is an innovation in international politics and should be further strengthened (also by a more intensive involvement of European governments and parliamentarins) 4. There was no support for any new type of intergovernmental mechanism for IG (neither G 12 nor IG 20 nor ITU). The GAC was seen as the main channel where governments can express their positions. However there was no room to discuss this more in details, inter alia how to improve and enhance the procedures for interaction among GAC and ICANN Board, in particular with regard to issues with a public policy dimension (veto right for the GAC? On which basis? Quroum for GAC participation etc.) 5. There was some criticism on ICANN with regard to accountabilty and internationalization however ICANN was seen as the best of all the bad solutions. There was a clear feeling that ICANN has to improve further, in particular with transparency, accountability, internal multistakeholder mechanisms and internationalization. 6. There was no clear proposal for a post JPA arrangement. There was also no idea how to deal with the IANA contract. The proposal by the Commissioner was not discussed in detail, but it got mixed reaction and was atered down as a "personal reflection" and a "contribution to the debate". 7. Security and DNSSEc plaid an important role. Also IPv6. The contributions came here from the tehcnical community and there was no opposition to their statements. In my interventions I raised a number of issues including * more transparency in the work of the High Level Group * more practicial implementation of the multistakehooder princpal in practical EU PDPs * stronger support for European CS by the Commission (also a concept how to enable CS (and ressource them) to make the European CS voice heard in the IGF and ICANN context. * support for the EURODIG concept as an all-European platform which would go beyond (but include) commission, council and parliament. Lets wait an see what the effect of the hearing will have in the coming weeks. Best regards Wolfgang I was also in Lisbon but had no time to report back,. The best report is the article by Monika Ermert in Intellectual Property Watch. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/28/2009-world-telecom-policy-forum-all-about-the-itu-mandate/ BTW Lisbon was just for governments and private sector members. Individual Internet users were allowed to listen but not to speak. When I asked the chair whether he woukld allow me to speak he (it was my fellow man Abdullah from Saudi Arabia a formerWGIG member) told me that I can send a written contribution which will be posted on the website but I had no right to speak. It was even worse than WSIS 2002. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 8 08:06:02 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 13:06:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda? In-Reply-To: References: <86D0184D-B33F-40E4-9DE3-108CABB57AE4@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A02A570.8060602@wzb.eu> <4A02C282.4040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A04202A.8010203@wzb.eu> McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> McTim wrote: >>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not be >>>> happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral >>>> equivalent. > > I agree with this, but fail to see what you prefer if you don't want > unilateral oversight, > multilateral oversight or no "external oversight". I find this conversation somewhat confusing. I thought I said that external oversight is necessary? > > > > McTim: >>> Won't CS have the most oversight over ICANN by electing as many CS >>> reps on the ICANN BoD as is possible? That's the model I prefer! > > Jeanette >> No, I think that any organization with regulatory authority needs external >> oversight. > > Does the ITU have external oversight? The ITU respects national sovereignty (and diversity). The ITU makes recommendations. ITU standard setting reflects the traditional national based telecommunication model. This doesn't work for the Internet. Besides, the ITU structure isn't exactly a model for multi-stakeholder participation, is it? > > Does the UN? I was talking about regulators. > > My experience in Internet resource policy making in the RIR > communities suggests that internal oversight, by members of the > community is sufficient. That's the model that I seek post JPA. I wouldn't compare RIRs and ICANN. The structure isn't quite the same. Put more generally, I am convinced that in the long run we need on the transnational level equivalents to the democratic institutions we have on the national level. Check and balance mechanisms are an important element of these democratic institutions. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Fri May 8 08:09:41 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:09:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] New MAG announced In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905071303p5d8b888dr90d79ac6139631ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905071303p5d8b888dr90d79ac6139631ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A042105.3030708@panos-ao.org> Congrats Fouad and Katitza and for the other colleagues renewed. And thanks for your kind appreciation (Ian, Fouad...) I would particularly like to thank IGC members, APC, ACSIS, WSIS CS GOV ING for having supported my nomination as MAG member for the last three years for some of them. It was a good learning experience for me. I'm also very happy that the candidate we supported in the African civil society network ACSIS for this new MAG has been selected (Coura Fall). A final note : personally I hoped Milton or Bill notably would have been selected for the new MAG but I understand several parameters were to be taken into account and that we can't have all our good candidates selected. Best KL Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > Dear Ian and all members, > > I would like to thank everyone and appreciate the transparent process > that has given me the opportunity to be part of this important group > from IGC. I assure you all that I will try my level best to justify my > role and work in this position. > > I would also like to add my words of recognition in support of Ian's > to those finishing term. > > I feel that this is indeed a very prominent opportunity for the Free > and Open Source Software FOSS movement as a FOSS advocate has been > selected amongst the MAG. Once again thank you everyone. > > Best Regards > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Just noticed the new MAG has been announced at www.intgovforum.org. On a >> first look we have at least two new members from IGC – Fouad Bajwa and >> Katitza Rod. Congratulations to both, excellent choices! However we also see >> Ken Lohento and Robin Gross finishing their terms, so it would appear our >> numbers are much the same. Thanks to both for your inputs on our behalf. >> Another term finished is that of Bertrand de La Chappelle – although a >> government rep these days, Bertrand is a long time participant here and I am >> sure his constructive input will be missed. Among ongoing representatives we >> have Qusai Al Shatti, Valeria Betancourt, Jeanette Hofmann, YJ Park, Natasha >> Primo, and Graciela Saleiman. >> >> I may have missed some names there, but it is good to see some new members >> from our group and a large number of our representatives retained. >> Congratulations to all! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 8 22:30:59 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:30:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Free IGF book Message-ID: <3E76F019-9A92-4D07-85DC-BF129834ED31@ciroap.org> My book "Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum" was released one year ago, so I'm belatedly making it available under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Licence. Download your copy at http://press.terminus.net.au/. While I have your attention, you can also download (under the same licence) a copy of Consumers International's inaugural IP Watch List, which rates the consumer-friendliness of copyright laws around the world: see http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Sat May 9 00:09:42 2009 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines | May 09, 2009 Message-ID: <28cfc1a40905082109g37b0903fo1271f276be39b4c4@mail.gmail.com> FYI. Best, Brenden ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Internet Governance Project Date: Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:02 AM Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu [image: Internet Governance Project] May 09, 2009 The EU High-Level Internet Governance Group Hearing <#121238a3a1721a01_0> EU to Obama: Privatize ICANN, Internationalize Oversight<#121238a3a1721a01_1> European Commission to hold Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangements, international dimensions of security and stability <#121238a3a1721a01_2> Hey Washington! A leaderless Internet finds its way, again<#121238a3a1721a01_3> Commerce Department: Headed toward ICANN 3.0? <#121238a3a1721a01_4> The simple solution to the .SU problem <#121238a3a1721a01_5> IGPAlert: ARIN Dir of Govt Affairs/Pub Policy and former NTIA rep C. Handley hits Internet governance trifecta - named to IGF MAG http://tr.im/kSN7<#121238a3a1721a01_6> IGPAlert: RT @intgovforum: A press release on the renewal of the MAG, has been issued by the UN in New York http://tr.im/kJ5f <#121238a3a1721a01_7> IGPAlert: H.R. 2271: Global Online Freedom Act of 2009 re-introduced http://bit.ly/UyT2L <#121238a3a1721a01_8> IGPAlert: Former US cybersecurity chief: "International collaboration is the key" to implementing secure Internet infrastructure. http://tr.im/kDRY<#121238a3a1721a01_9> IGPAlert: Mueller files comments on the proposal for an IDN gTLD constituency http://tr.im/kqvG <#121238a3a1721a01_10> IGPAlert: Fascinating paper on domain flux techniques used by botnets, suggests regulation of registrars as possible countermeasure http://tr.im/kigN <#121238a3a1721a01_11> IGPAlert: More networked governance: FBI rep presents new gov-priv sector collaboration effort: ARIN Government Working Group (AGWG) http://tr.im/jX5C<#121238a3a1721a01_12> Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ------------------------------ The EU High-Level Internet Governance Group Hearing Nearly 80 participants attended the EU-sponsored hearing on internet governance Wednesday. The hearing was held the day before a private meeting of the EC’s High Level Internet Governance Group (HLIGG), as a way of gathering opinions and ideas. Participants who came eager to discuss and explore Commissioner Viviane Reding’s call for new forms of accountability and oversight of ICANNquickly learned that her proposal was off-limits. Reding’s paper, we learned, was her own personal initiative, not an official or vetted product of the EC. Members of the HLIGG were as surprised by it as the rest of us and did not want discussion of it to dominate the hearing. • Email to a friend• Article Search• EU to Obama: Privatize ICANN, Internationalize Oversight Saying that "A moment of truth will come on 30 September this year," European Commissioner Viviane Reding proposed a reformed model of global Internet governance. Release of the proposal was timed to enable discussion of it at the May 6th 2009 consultations in Brussels. In the statement, she expressed support for the basic model of a privatized, independent ICANN and pressed President Obama to complete the job. She also made two interesting proposals, one for an independent international tribunal to which ICANN decisions could be appealed, and the other for a forum of 12 governments that would meet twice a year to make recommendations to ICANN on public policy matters. • Email to a friend• Article Search• European Commission to hold Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangements, international dimensions of security and stability IGP's Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hofmann have been invited to attend a European Commission Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangementsto be held in Brussels on May 6. The agendafocuses attention on the international dimension of "security and stability" as governments continue to use the "critical infrastructure" rubric to position themselves for a stronger role. For example, it asks whether "self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services [should] be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" • Email to a friend• Article Search• Hey Washington! A leaderless Internet finds its way, again With Washington cyberbuzzing from Congressional hearings and report releases over the past week – on topics from the power struggle over who should be the USG’s cyber tsarto how best to prepare the nationfor what seems to be imminent "cyberattacks" from Russia or China – you’d think lawmakers are convinced that, unless someone “owns the problem” and the US provides stronger leadership, the Internet as we know it is doomed. Fortunately, the experts over at Renesys have again published datasuggesting that this is not necessarily the case – that the Internet’s infrastructure (in this case routing) is remarkably resilient in the face of constantly changing threats. Furthermore, their data seemingly indicates that there are high levels of largely uncoordinated (that’s right, leaderless) organizational responses occurring when incidents transpire. • Email to a friend• Article Search• Commerce Department: Headed toward ICANN 3.0? The NTIA has published a Notice of Inquiry, Assessment of the Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, in advance of the expiration of the Joint Project Agreement in September 2009. The document outlines the history and evolution of the MOU between the DoC and ICANN, and the questions posed cover fairly standard territory. However, one caught our attention. • Email to a friend• Article Search• The simple solution to the .SU problem Discussions within ICANN are underway about what to do with the .SU top level domain. The .SU TLD was a country code when the Soviet Union existed. Obviously, that political entity no longer exists. There is now a debate about whether to close down the TLD or not. In the meantime, the people who run it (in some place called "Russia," which already has its own TLD, .ru) are registering new domains like mad. ICANN is in a conundrum. • Email to a friend• Article Search• IGPAlert: ARIN Dir of Govt Affairs/Pub Policy and former NTIA rep C. Handley hits Internet governance trifecta - named to IGF MAG http://tr.im/kSN7 IGPAlert: ARIN Dir of Govt Affairs/Pub Policy and former NTIA rep C. Handley hits Internet governance trifecta - named to IGF MAG http://tr.im/kSN7 • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: RT @intgovforum: A press release on the renewal of the MAG, has been issued by the UN in New York http://tr.im/kJ5f IGPAlert: RT @intgovforum: A press release on the renewal of the MAG, has been issued by the UN in New York http://tr.im/kJ5f • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: H.R. 2271: Global Online Freedom Act of 2009 re-introduced http://bit.ly/UyT2L IGPAlert: H.R. 2271: Global Online Freedom Act of 2009 re-introduced http://bit.ly/UyT2L • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: Former US cybersecurity chief: "International collaboration is the key" to implementing secure Internet infrastructure. http://tr.im/kDRY IGPAlert: Former US cybersecurity chief: "International collaboration is the key" to implementing secure Internet infrastructure. http://tr.im/kDRY • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: Mueller files comments on the proposal for an IDN gTLD constituency http://tr.im/kqvG IGPAlert: Mueller files comments on the proposal for an IDN gTLD constituency http://tr.im/kqvG • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: Fascinating paper on domain flux techniques used by botnets, suggests regulation of registrars as possible countermeasure http://tr.im/kigN IGPAlert: Fascinating paper on domain flux techniques used by botnets, suggests regulation of registrars as possible countermeasure http://tr.im/kigN • Email to a friend• IGPAlert: More networked governance: FBI rep presents new gov-priv sector collaboration effort: ARIN Government Working Group (AGWG) http://tr.im/jX5C IGPAlert: More networked governance: FBI rep presents new gov-priv sector collaboration effort: ARIN Government Working Group (AGWG) http://tr.im/jX5C • Email to a friend• ------------------------------ *Click here to safely unsubscribe nowfrom "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe * ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 9 01:58:47 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:58:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [afnog] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation In-Reply-To: <55589.31602.qm@web57802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <55589.31602.qm@web57802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: FYI, an thorny IG dilemna arising: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Apologies for cross-posting: It took a KENIC (KEnya Network Information Center, www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for the Kenyan Internet community to digest the implication of the a Kenyan ICT Legislation passed more than five months ago.  The law which included sections that touched on the Media, IT, Telecommunication and Postal Services has faced stiff resistance from the Media fraternity while the Internet Community kept a low if not a dead profile. It was at the KENIC general meeting held today in Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled with the implication of the IT section on the operation of the .KE namespace.  The law specifies that all second level .KE internet domain names must be licensed by the country's converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya.  The law requires that all Registries - those who manage the internet domains - must apply for a license by the 2nd of June 2009. KENIC, a public-private-partnership has under the ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace including the 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, xyz.OR.KE, etc. From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission from the Regulator to continue managing these sub-domains. In an effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board requested the community to support a resolution that a new legal entity (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in order to apply for the license from the Regulator as well as compete with other potential entities that are set to fight in that space. The proposals opened up heated discussions with some members wondering if KENIC was ceding its hard-won rights & control over the .KE namespace to an exclusive and single entity.  The current governance structure for KENIC provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership over the whole .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, Private Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board Representation that is wholly accountable to Internet Users during Annual General Meetings. Effectively, the new law takes part of this mandate and places it under one or two of these Stakeholders that is the Regulator/Govt. Members wondered about the criteria that would be used by the Regulator to award the management licenses to various competitors. Others wondered about the potential conflict between the local legislation and the ICANN policies given that KENIC has currently been operating under ICANN policies but now has to take cognizance of the local law.  For example, if the Regulator granted a license to someone else to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT the local internet community for one reason or the other instructed the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the delegation from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet other members wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would cannibalize their existing markets and services. It has taken five months of silence but clearly, the Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to understand and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT law that had previously been hijacked and labeled "Media law" at the expense of IT practitioners.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out before and after the 2nd of June 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers must be licensed by the Regulator. walu _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat May 9 05:41:45 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 16:41:45 +0700 Subject: [governance] Free IGF book In-Reply-To: <3E76F019-9A92-4D07-85DC-BF129834ED31@ciroap.org> References: <3E76F019-9A92-4D07-85DC-BF129834ED31@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905090241l19a0784ek72810576cb44e18c@mail.gmail.com> Wonderful Jeremy, that's the spirit! On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > My book "Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum" was > released one year ago, so I'm belatedly making it available under a Creative > Commons Attribution Share-Alike Licence.  Download your copy at > http://press.terminus.net.au/. > > While I have your attention, you can also download (under the same licence) > a copy of Consumers International's inaugural IP Watch List, which rates the > consumer-friendliness of copyright laws around the world: see > http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning > voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we > are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and > empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > www.consumersinternational.org. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 9 20:11:34 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:11:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: The Future of Internet Governance: Towards an Accountable ICANN Message-ID: <1629242065AA406BA0081778C276B3F8@userPC> -----Original Message----- From: incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info [mailto:incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info] On Behalf Of Geert Lovink Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:23 AM To: incom-l at incommunicado.info Subject: The Future of Internet Governance: Towards an Accountable ICANN > http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm Video address by Viviane Reding (EU). _______________________________________________ incom-l mailing list incom-l at incommunicado.info http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l !DSPAM:2676,4a05344225634488320960! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 9 22:37:23 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 08:07:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Facebook is blocking private e-mails between users that contain links to PirateBay] Message-ID: <4A063DE3.6090904@itforchange.net> http://twit-o-matic.com/icontent/iframe.html?tmurl=http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wiredbusinessblog/~3/uMtBYD1iyyI/ Epicenter The Business of Tech Facebook’s E-mail Censorship is Legally Dubious, Experts Say * By Ryan Singel Email Author * May 6, 2009 | * 5:20 pm | * Categories: Social Media facebook_piratebayWhen The Pirate Bay released new Facebook features last month, the popular social networking site took evasive action, blocking its members from distributing file-sharing links through its service. Now legal experts say Facebook may have gone too far, blocking not only links to torrents published publicly on member profile pages, but also examining private messages that might contain them, and blocking those as well. “This raises serious questions about whether Facebook is in compliance with federal wiretapping law,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, responding to questions from a reporter about the little-noticed policy that was first reported by TorrentFreak . Facebook private messages are governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act , which forbids communications providers from intercepting user messages, barring limited exceptions for security and valid legal orders. While the sniffing of e-mails is not unknown — it’s how Google serves up targeted ads in Gmail and how Yahoo filters out viruses, for example — the notion that a legitimate e-mail would be not be delivered based on its content is extraordinary. Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly acknowledged that the site censors user messages based on links. But he insisted that Facebook has the legal right to do so, because it tells users they cannot “disseminate spammy, illegal, threatening or harassing content.” “Just as many e-mail services do scanning to divert or block spam, prevent fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of the service — or in the case of some services, to deliver targeted advertising — Facebook has automated systems that have the capability to block links,” Kelly said in an e-mail. “ECPA expressly allows Facebook to operate these systems.” “The same automated system that blocks these links may also be deployed where there is a demonstrated disregard for intellectual property rights,” he added. Facebook declined to answer questions about whether it similarly searched private messages for references to illegal drugs, underage drinking or shoplifting. EFF lawyers suggested that the legality of Facebook’s censorship turns on Facebook’s Terms of Service, how and when the blocking takes place, and whether the messaging system affects interstate commerce (thus giving the federal government jurisdiction). It’s not clear, however, how links to torrents are spammy, harassing or illegal. Torrents themselves are not copyright-infringing, nor would Facebook be liable for their users’ communications under federal law even if the files were infringing. Wired.com confirmed Facebook is blocking private messages by sending a link to a Pirate Bay torrent feed of a book in the public domain . Such content is freely available to everyone, as all copyrights have expired. Nevertheless, the message bounced twice, returning the following failure notice: “This Message Contains Blocked Content. Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.” (Facebook’s link-censoring system is may be just tilting at windmills, however, because removing a single vowel from the domain name lets the URL go through.) In the case of Wired.com’s test, there were only two Facebook users who should have been aware of the content — Wired.com editor John C. Abell and his message’s intended recipient, who was sitting five feet from him — and neither had the slightest objection to it whatsoever. The EFF’s Bankston suggests that the real answer to the legal confusion over what providers can and cannot do with users’ online communications needs to come from federal lawmakers, who authored the statutes about e-mail privacy in the 1980s when the technology was much different. “It is often unclear whether or how these Web 2.0 companies are covered by federal electronic privacy statutes, and that’s why Congress needs to update and revisit the law,” he said. /Additional reporting and writing by John C. Abell. This story was edited for style Wednesday afternoon./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 83 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 106780 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 10 06:24:28 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:24:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [afnog] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet In-Reply-To: References: <55589.31602.qm@web57802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Is there some misunderstanding here about what the new law does? Isn't this the introduction of liberalization at the second level through the creation of a competitive registrar model? KENIC is the registry operator and ccTLD manager of the whole KE namespace (still - nothing has changed there), but the new law has introduced means to create registrars at the second level. If a company/entity wants to become a registrar then they must receive a simple license from CCK (the regulator) to manage or sell names at the sub domain level, i.e. names at co.ke, or.ke etc. This seems to be progress, i.e. liberalization and encouraging competition. Think there's been quite a bit of concern and misunderstanding of this on a few African lists. Anyway, this is my understanding of the law and its intent. Adam >FYI, an thorny IG dilemna arising: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >Apologies for cross-posting: > >It took a KENIC (KEnya Network Information Center, www.kenic.or.ke) >Annual General Meeting for the Kenyan Internet community to digest the >implication of the a Kenyan ICT Legislation passed more than five >months ago.  The law which included sections that touched on the >Media, IT, Telecommunication and Postal Services has faced stiff >resistance from the Media fraternity while the Internet Community kept >a low if not a dead profile. > > >It was at the KENIC general meeting held today in Nairobi that the >Internet Community grappled with the implication of the IT section on >the operation of the .KE namespace.  The law specifies that all second >level .KE internet domain names must be licensed by the country's >converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya.  The law >requires that all Registries - those who manage the internet domains - >must apply for a license by the 2nd of June 2009. > > > >KENIC, a public-private-partnership has under the ICANN Policies been >managing the .KE namespace including the 2nd level sub-domains such as >xyz.CO.KE, xyz.OR.KE, etc. From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek >permission from the Regulator to continue managing these sub-domains. >In an effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board requested the >community to support a resolution that a new legal entity (Special >Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in order to apply for the license >from the Regulator as well as compete with other potential entities >that are set to fight in that space. > > > >The proposals opened up heated discussions with some members wondering >if KENIC was ceding its hard-won rights & control over the .KE >namespace to an exclusive and single entity.  The current governance >structure for KENIC provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership over >the whole .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, Private >Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board Representation that is wholly >accountable to Internet Users during Annual General Meetings. >Effectively, the new law takes part of this mandate and places it >under one or two of these Stakeholders that is the Regulator/Govt. > > > >Members wondered about the criteria that would be used by the >Regulator to award the management licenses to various competitors. >Others wondered about the potential conflict between the local >legislation and the ICANN policies given that KENIC has currently been >operating under ICANN policies but now has to take cognizance of the >local law.  For example, if the Regulator granted a license to someone >else to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT the local internet community >for one reason or the other instructed the KENIC Board NOT to accept >and transfer the delegation from KENIC how would that be resolved? And >yet other members wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would >cannibalize their existing markets and services. > > > >It has taken five months of silence but clearly, the Kenyan Internet >community is just beginning to understand and feel the heat of some >sections in the ICT law that had previously been hijacked and labeled >"Media law" at the expense of IT practitioners.  It will be >interesting to see how this plays out before and after the 2nd of June >2009 - the date when all subdomain managers must be licensed by the >Regulator. > > > >walu > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >afnog mailing list >http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >http://stateoftheinternetin.ug >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 10 06:45:35 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 13:45:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [afnog] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet In-Reply-To: References: <55589.31602.qm@web57802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Is there some misunderstanding here about what the new law does? > > Isn't this the introduction of liberalization at the second level through > the creation of a competitive registrar model?  KENIC is the registry > operator and ccTLD manager of the whole KE namespace (still - nothing has > changed there), except gov't intervention where none has existed before. but the new law has introduced means to create registrars at > the second level.  If a company/entity wants to become a registrar then they > must receive a simple license from CCK (the regulator) the telecoms/ISP regulator. This isn't selling Internet access. to manage or sell > names at the sub domain level, i.e. names at co.ke, or.ke etc. This seems to > be progress, i.e. liberalization and encouraging competition. it seems to be a way to milk more cash from the process. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sun May 10 07:59:59 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 07:29:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] OC meeting notes: RP, statement and 9 am meeting Message-ID: <4A06C1BF.3050101@gmail.com> Hi everyone, I do not yet have the Remote Participation details from Chengatai for the Wednesday OC meeting. I will post if I can, but Rafik Dammak, of the RP Working Group has promised to post all information as well, since I will be traveling. Since there are so many things going on Wednesday, I suggest that anyone who can meet outside the OC meeting room at 9 a.m. Wednesday morning, and then we see if we can have a meeting later on as well. At any rate, I remind you that my Skype login is gingerpaque, and ask that anyone who is at the meeting connect to Skype so we can follow. Ian (through RP) or I will read the following previously agreed upon statement during the meeting: The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. Regards, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Sun May 10 08:10:24 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:10:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] OC meeting notes: RP, statement and 9 am meeting In-Reply-To: <4A06C1BF.3050101@gmail.com> References: <4A06C1BF.3050101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8017791e0905100510m243304bamebdaccc07f769d18@mail.gmail.com> Ginger, Thanks for the update on Remote Participation. Perhaps as always MK/CM will share details on RP, please keep us posted and thanks for Skype login. With best regards Sincerely Asif Kabani 2009/5/10 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, > > I do not yet have the Remote Participation details from Chengatai for the > Wednesday OC meeting. I will post if I can, but Rafik Dammak, of the RP > Working Group has promised to post all information as well, since I will be > traveling. > > Since there are so many things going on Wednesday, I suggest that anyone > who can meet outside the OC meeting room at 9 a.m. Wednesday morning, and > then we see if we can have a meeting later on as well. At any rate, I remind > you that my Skype login is gingerpaque, and ask that anyone who is at the > meeting connect to Skype so we can follow. > > Ian (through RP) or I will read the following previously agreed upon > statement during the meeting: > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' > as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. > > However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme this year > on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and > that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given > that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 > and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, > if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish > this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future > debates and meetings. > > Regards, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 11 07:23:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:53:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: Strategy of the RPWG for the next OC] Message-ID: <4A080AB3.6050409@gmail.com> Hello everyone, This information comes from Rafik at the Remote Participation Working Group. See you in Geneva, or see you online! Best, Ginger On May 13 the Geneva Open Consultations (OC) will be held by the IGF Secretariat. This is an important space to follow-up the activities that have been developed lately, as well as to exercise and strengthen transparency and accountability in the IG process. On the next OC, participants will discuss key issues for the next IGF, such as the workshop proposals (which have been submitted earlier this year, to give MAG the chance to merge overlapping themes), the IGF review process and the program and agenda for the next meeting in Sharm El Sheikh. The Remote Participation Working Group will once again cover the OC, using interactive channels such as CoverItLive and Twitter. To stay tuned with the OC debates and to actively participate by giving your opinion, please join use at this address for liveblogging http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=9bffa22419 everybody is welcome to comment and to participate and no need to register. for twitter please follow @igfremote and we will use the hashtag #igf for tweets related to open consultations, if you are already twitter user, you can share your id and your tweets will be added automatically to live blog. Regards Rafik On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Rafik and all, please see if this text is OK. We could sent it to our mailing lists, contacts, facebook, etc. @Rafik, you just have to complete the final paragraph with the instructions to participate. Can you send it back to us asap? Regards! Marilia On May 13 the Geneva Open Consultations (OC) will be held by the IGF Secretariat. This is an important space to follow-up the activities that have been developed lately, as well as to exercise and strengthen transparency and accountability in the IG process. On the next OC, participants will discuss key issues for the next IGF, such as the workshop proposals (which have been submitted earlier this year, to give MAG the chance to merge overlapping themes), the IGF review process and the program and agenda for the next meeting in Sharm El Sheikh. The Remote Participation Working Group will once again cover the OC, using interactive channels such as CoverItLive and Twitter. To stay tuned with the OC debates and to actively participate by giving your opinion, please …. (instructions) On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hello Ginger, OK, I confirm, Rafik On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Hi Rafik, Thanks... Will you please post all RP info for the OC to the IGC list? Since I will be traveling, it would be great if you could do that for us. Please confirm, ok? Thanks!! Best, gp Rafik Dammak wrote: Hello All, I will send invitations soon. yes we will spread first news at diplo network and after at other mailing list, someone can help me for texting :)? as usual we will use coveritlive as I think that all you are familiar to use it and twitter. yes we will use #igf09 it isn't so long tag, if you notice other tag used by some people let me know and so I can add it to coveritlive streaming I am minding to have alternatif streaming (to avoid the same problem of last OC) but we need someone at OC who can use his/her webcam and so webcasting thorugh ustream channels (@Nicolas @Bernard what do you think?) Rafik On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM, charity gamboa >> wrote: Hey guys! I will be awaiting instructions/invitations from you about twitter and CoverITLive during the OC. Are we using the #igf09 tag? Is this correct? Thanks! Cha --- On *Fri, 5/8/09, Marilia Maciel / >>/* wrote: From: Marilia Maciel >> Subject: Re: Strategy of the RPWG for the next OC To: "Rafik Dammak" >> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >>, "charity gamboa" >>, "Raquel Gatto" >>, "Bernard Sadaka" >>, "Seiiti Arata Jr." >>, "Nicolas Quagliata" >> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 9:45 PM I am ready! Rafik, do you think we will use Twitter and CoverItLive again? As soon as we know this, we can start announcing that "the RPWG will cover the OC again, so stay tuned!", right? Best Marília On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: Hello All, as I did for last OC, I will try to setup tools and promote them for coverage, so please be ready to volunteer. Regards Rafik On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Marilia Maciel >> wrote: Dear all, I am sorry for my absence too. A lot has happened around here, and I have just been incredibly busy. I have good professional news and I hope I will be able to write a longer e-mail with more details soon. I am writing to you to propose that we put together a strategy on what is still possible to organize for the upcoming Geneva OC. I know our time is short, but I believe that it is still possible to give some visibility to RP in the event. I believe we can concentrate in the following actions: 1) To publicize the OC and its agenda 2) To mobilize hub organizers for the OC (I can do that) 3) To confirm with Olga if she wants to make a statement on behalf of hub organizers, as she said she did. (I can do that) 4) To organize a live coverage of the event as we did last year, through Twitter and Coveritlive 5) To publicize our live coverage in all possible channels (twitter, facebook, discussion lists) 6) To write a statement for Ginger to read in the OC, along the lines she proposed. 7) To agree about an agenda for the RPWG meeting with the Secretariat. I think that by doing this we are reinforcing the space conquered on the last OC, even if we are not in fact moving forward in urgent matters like the Guidelines. I am totally in favor that we give priority to the Guidelines (I will do my best to give it priority myself) and that we complete this document and make it available as soon as possible to the Secretariat and host country. I just think that the doc will not be ready until 13 May and we should not present an unfinished idea. Please tell me if would like to propose anything else and if you agree with these points. Best wishes! Marília ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 11 07:38:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:08:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation from IGF website Message-ID: <4A080E25.8050909@gmail.com> I received an update from Chengatai on remote tools being offered by the IGF Secretariat for the OC on Wednesday. "We are planning the usual webcast (Audio + Video in English and French). (it won't be password protected this time as it is under our control). We will also have the chat function and email addresses for write in interventions." Complete information should be available on the IGF page (www.igf2009.org, or www.intgovforum.org/cms/) but I have not checked. Emails can be sent to igf at unog.ch Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 11 08:17:01 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:17:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF remote participation from IGF website In-Reply-To: <4A080E25.8050909@gmail.com> References: <4A080E25.8050909@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4A080E25.8050909 at gmail.com>, at 07:08:13 on Mon, 11 May 2009, Ginger Paque writes >Emails can be sent to igf at unog.ch http://twitter.com/igfremote has news on remote participation. -- 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 garth.graham at telus.net Mon May 11 19:34:25 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:34:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Invitation: May 13th: Public Participation Meeting In-Reply-To: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20090508094204.9C8E636F0EE@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <624085DD-2C4F-4932-A5FF-06BA9B7662E7@telus.net> On 8-May-09, at 2:41 AM, karen banks wrote: > Attached is ....... a summary of David Souter's second research > report ........ The report reviews the governance, information and > participation practices of twelve "entities" which are primarily or > extensively concerned with internet governance; includes > assessments of the similarities among and differences between them > in five main areas and identifies significant tensions and > challenges to information and participation practice which are > posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are > discussed in some depth, but are summarised in the form of > questions for discussion between the project and the internet > governance community. In April, under the thread “Workshop proposal - Internationalization of,” I commented that the Internet's inherent capacity to support distributed self-organizing relationships was a symptom of an underlying radical shift in understanding of the nature of governance. If that’s so, then David Souter's summary of the research report on “participation” raises an even broader question of context than it addresses. Souter correctly notes a continuum of policy dialogue about, “the relationship between ‘narrow’ internet governance, which is concerned with governance of the Internet itself, and ‘broad’ internet governance, which is concerned with interfaces between the Internet and other areas of public policy.” [1]. But does that word “participation” intend to encompass what the vision statement in the IGC Charter calls “interdependence,” and what I’ve previously referred to as relational self-organization? Certainly the content of the participation principles comes up to the edge of that essential but risky debate without actually summarizing its inherent proposition. When do we admit what we know, that Internet Governance reveals something significant about an alternative understanding of the nature of governance? Isn’t it time we acknowledged, not that systemic change is required, but that systemic change is already in being? To the degree that the “ethos” of the participation principles governing the practices of “Internet Governance actors” includes behaviors such as identification, altruism, compassion, caring, co- operation, mutual understanding, and trust, maybe the principles do acknowledge that. They certainly open the door part way for discussions about why the culture or belief systems that underlie those values are different. I am encouraged to spot some signs that others are also risking ways of addressing a shift in the possible meanings of governance. For example, there’s Milton Mueller’s reference to a redefinition of “public authority,” [2] and there’s ISOC’s statement of the importance of “user centricity” in design. [3]. I am aware that many of us who see that wider context also want to avoid the risk of waking the slumber of governments. They believe pragmatic caution is the best way. After all, are there any nation states prepared to accept that the very basis of governance is profoundly challenged by the Internet’s existence? I don’t feel the need for caution myself. This is because I see that the existence of a global dialogue about the means of Internet Governance signals they are already awake to the problem that most of the explanations of what’s occurring don’t add up. And, as they seek to determine how different questions might produce better answers, what happens then? Maybe it’s time to anticipate that the presently unmentionable is actually going to be addressed? Except for governance, most disciplines and sectors are now in the midst of an exploration of the significance of evolutionary theory for their practices. In an evolutionary view, the primary rule governing the structure of the communities and societies we now live in is that things self-organize. Under that rule, there is no place to put an explanation of something that comes from outside a system. There is no maker. Somehow the system makes itself. What we can know comes to us only through networks of relationship. And what makes us human in relationship is not competition for scarce resources. It’s the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions. Self-organizing systems govern themselves by incorporating the rules about making rules within themselves. Hierarchical systems are governed by imposing the rules about making rules from outside. In an evolutionary view, both the Internet and the debate about Internet Governance can be understood as a mirror that reflects an enormous cultural shift in the autonomy of individuals and the significance of their local knowledge and practices. Or, in other words, “the ‘broad’ internet governance arena, where the internet intersects with other public policy issues and organizations which have different governance traditions,” is, in fact, much broader than this expression anticipates. Because it contradicts the powerful notion of hierarchy as the key principle of organization, there is strong resistance to a relational self-organizing view of the origins of structure. For example, I have never accepted the usefulness or even pragmatic reality of assuming hierarchical society and then dividing it into parts of three – the uncivil alliance of business and governments supposedly arraigned against the rest of us categorized as somehow civil. In fact, on this list, I’ve previously quoted Castells to the effect that “civil society” is a construct cooked up by the other two sides of the triangle to avoid responsibility for doing the stuff that doesn’t interest them. But those three pillars of social structure remain the unquestioned assumption behind the multi-stakeholder model. I think that the multi-stakeholder model (the Internet Model) would work much better if the critical particle of social structure was understood to be autonomous community. In my own attempts to explore an alternative view, I work to support the choices made by autonomous individuals to sustain the capacity of autonomous communities to decide their own futures. I don’t agree that “levels” of hierarchy that separate - local, regional, national, sectoral, and global - apply to self-organizing systems. So, when I chose to act in the context of community as a dynamic system that distributes its functions across its members, I’m not choosing to act “ local” in the sense that is ordinarily meant. I do admit I’ve been less than successful in finding a useful way to express the notion that the autonomy of the individual and of the community to self-organize are mutually reinforcing and that Internet Protocol has specific utility in sustaining that reinforcement. [1]. David Souter. Information and participation in internet governance - a summary note on the second phase of work by the Council of Europe, UNECE and APC. [2]. Milton Mueller. On the role of governments in Internet governance. Submission to the Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangements, HLGIG, Brussels, 6 May 2009. “By establishing rich and deep interlinking among its users, the Internet creates a new public, one that transcends traditional territorial boundaries and political groupings. By redefining the relevant public, it redefines the issue of who or what constitutes ‘public authority’.” [3]. Preserving the User Centric Internet. Internet Society Discussion Paper: http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf “.... the Internet Society believes that the guiding principles for decision making must be the preservation of the Internet’s user- centricity through its design values and its principles of openness, transparency, edge-based intelligence and, above all, user choice. Architectures, business models, and policies that fundamentally shift away from these design values are fundamentally shifting away from the Internet itself.” GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 14 01:39:45 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:39:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" Message-ID: For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that we can solve this problem. But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up. So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion." I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 14 05:31:02 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:31:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Twomey interview on ICANN References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI San Francisco Chronicle World will change ICANN's future, CEO says Sunday, May 10, 2009 Almost from the first day it was created in 1998, ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, has been at the heart of a worldwide controversy over who should control the Internet. Set up as a nonprofit in California to coordinate the Internet's address system and parts of the Internet's plumbing, ICANN is pushed and pulled more than ever as more people around the world go online. Just last week, a commissioner for the European Union, Viviane Reding, called on President Obama to sever ICANN's ties with the U.S. Department of Commerce when the joint agreement between the two organizations expires on Sept. 30. She wants ICANN to be made accountable to an international body - a "G12 for Internet governance." ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey, a genial Australian whose job is to balance all of ICANN's opposing factions, called Reding's stance "personal" and said the G12 is not necessary. But he also said the agreement with the United States should be allowed to expire because ICANN is ready to stand on its own. Twomey plans to step down from ICANN this year after more than six years of being in charge. He stopped by The Chronicle to talk about how the Internet will continue to change as ICANN opens it to millions of new users outside the United States - a job that he said is like going through "a 15-story building that had red brick columns, and changing all those red bricks to multicolored bricks, and doing it in a way that makes certain the door is still open and the windows still work." This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Q: When can we expect to have international top-level domain names in different languages? A: I'm thinking first quarter of next year. There's a series of countries - the northeast Asians, the Arabs, the Indians, the Arabic-speaking Farsi, south Asia if you like, and then the Bulgarians and the Greeks and the Russians - have all expressed interest in fast-tracking this process. And this has got very high attention. In Russia, it is an agenda item for both the president and the prime minister. Similarly, we've had lots of good conversations with the Chinese - it's going to the top of ministries and to state councils. It's also a very high priority for India. The Indians are putting fiber into 600,000 villages across India. Around 150 million people in India speak English. The next billion don't. So the policy is to bring the Internet to the next 300 to 400 million people in India. To do that they have to have a keyboard that's in the character set of the village. There are 22 official languages and 11 scripts. Q: What implications does this have for balkanizing the Internet? We as English speakers are spoiled because the entire Internet has been open to us, pretty much. Will that no longer be the case? A: Let's be clear about what we mean when we say "the Internet." The Internet has three layers. There is a transit layer - the pipes and the radio signals. There is the protocol layer, which is the stuff we're worried about - the mechanisms whereby every device on the Internet talks to every other device, where 250,000 private networks operate as one single, global, interoperable Internet. And then sitting on top of those is the application layer. The reality is that the application layer is increasingly localizing, and as a consequence we're going to see the Internet reflect the world - the local and the global. Think how many businesses down in the Valley are all about local - you've got to be local, right? Well, we're going to be local in Shenzhen and we're going to be local in Hyderabad, not just local in Boise, Idaho. What we've been very concerned about is to ensure it's done in a way that's fully integrated across the entire global Internet. So, to give you an example, there were various proprietary voices in the Middle East promoting plug-in mechanisms for Arabic that had to be put in at the ISP level for people to have a fully Arabic experience. The difficulty with that is that if you went to Switzerland on holidays, it wouldn't work. What we're concerned about is having a mechanism that no matter where you are, from Norway to New Zealand, it's going to work. There is only one single global technology. The TCP/IP protocol doesn't recognize geographic boundaries, it's a topological network. This is one of the geniuses of the Internet, why it's grown so quickly. We're very committed to promoting that. Q: If I had a domain name that was in, for example, Chinese characters, and I didn't have my (Chinese keyboard) with me, how would I type it? A: Let me give an Australian example. I've got six or seven domain names from some of the businesses I've had. We had domain names that were "dot com" because we wanted to say we were global, particularly focused on North America, and we had "dot biz" for similar reasons. But we had "dot au" and "dot hk" because we wanted to say we're Australian or we're Hong Kong Chinese, or whatever. Even in ASCII, people use domain names as a form of identity. I think that will be even more so around international domain name country codes. If you're in China, people will use the Chinese. And if they want to deal with Wal-Mart as a buyer of their manufactured goods, they can have a "dot com" or a "dot biz" or something in Roman characters, and both Web sites will probably resolve to a hosted site that has English and Chinese on it. And if people have only an Urdu domain name, then they are probably saying that they don't identify people who speak English or whatever. I do think also that innovation will come in here and people will do all sorts of translation. Q: What are some of the new domain names that are coming online? A: I'm hesitating because we leave it to potential applicants to go public rather than us outing the field. But I will give an example. There's clearly a series of geographic-specific ones. There's a series of cities coming out - "dot berlin," "dot paris," "dot london." There are some people who want to apply for "dot galicia" in Spain. Q: "Dot nyc"? A: "Dot nyc." Q: "Dot sanfrancisco"? A: Not yet that I know of ... Q: We'd better get right on it. A: So those are taking off, and at the same time our governmental advisory committee is quite concerned about geopolitical terms, geographical terms. We're putting in place a series of objections and processes around geopolitical terms, which are quite an issueQ: Just a silly question. Who has the right to apply for "dot sanfrancisco"? A: Excellent question. It's likely that you would need to have the support of the relevant public authority. And we will probably leave it up somewhat to the local community to define what the relevant public authority is. We've also got regional communities. We're fully expecting applications for indigenous groups - some from Europe, some from the South Pacific. Certainly there's been talk about a "dot Maori" at some stage. Q: Why not have unlimited top-level domains, just have people create their own? Or is that part of the plan? A: That's the plan. The BBC described it as "dot almost anything goes." I like to think of it as "dot almost anything goes, but not with complete chaos." There are going to be some rules around it. There are going to be places for objections. For a top-level domain, you can object on intellectual property grounds. We've got a lot of experience from what we call the uniform dispute resolution process. Something like 36,000 cases of these have already been resolved in the last 10 years. There are (dispute) mechanisms if you apply for a top-level domain. I'm the Coke and Coal Association of the world and you're a certain well-known beverage manufacturer in Atlanta. Who can get "dot coke," right? Or if you apply for "dot kom," "dot con" or something like that. It's obviously a variation on a top-level domain. Also if you put forward a string purporting to represent a community, but you don't really. You put forward "dot maui," but you're really just a shoe manufacturer with a new (Hawaiian-like) brand. There was period of time in Silicon Valley when everything was in the Hawaiian language - people were searching through languages for stuff like that. And the last area is potentially morality and public order. The community view was that there may well be applications or strings put forward that are so controversial that they could actually run against morality and public order. That's a difficult issue, so the proposal would be for a senior appellate judge of international arbitration and there would be quite a narrow mandate for what could be taken to that judge. There's still a lot of discussion going on in the community - we'll go through several rounds of discussion on the implementation. Q: What's the makeup of registered domains now? A: There are about 170 million domain names in the world at the moment, of which just over half are country codes. "Dot com" I think is just short of 80 million, which is by far the major number for the generic top-level domains. Well over 70 percent of the registrations are in North America, so in some respects, "dot com" is the de facto country code for the United States. >From what I'm seeing so far, it looks like we will potentially get four categories of applications. The first is for a series of generic names. There will be more than one application for "dot web" and things like "dot shop," that sort of stuff. There's also a group of people who are applying for community-based, top-level domains like the geographical or ethnic communities or associations. For instance, "dot coop" is a top-level domain with about 8,000 registrations that have been in place for eight or nine years, and I understand they're quite pumped. They don't need to have 8 million, only 8,000. There are people who are going to apply for brand-related top-level domains. We've been surprised by how much people are interested in those. I've had some of the funniest experiences of having intellectual property people from "Mega Corp." complain to me on Monday about how the world's falling in, and on Wednesday having the product people ring me to say, "Can we have the first (domain)? Because we have a new product out and we'd like to launch with it." I'm hesitating to use any examples, but you could have "dot car manufacturer," and before that you would have "Brand A dot car manufacturer" and "Brand B dot car manufacturer." Some people seem to be interested in these mostly for e-mail. They will basically shift their e-mail, again using e-mail as a form of branding, to being Fred at Mega Corp., and they might have a few second-level domains sitting behind the top-level domain. And then the other one is going to be the internationalized domain names, particularly the country code level, but also potentially for generics. Q: ICANN has had a sort of love/hate relationship with VeriSign over the years. (VeriSign's legal challenge to ICANN's authority was settled in 2006.) What's the relationship now? A: I think it's a very constructive relationship now. Also, the present leadership of VeriSign has been very constructive. While people are very vigorous in defending their positions within the contexts of ICANN and its frameworks, I think in the attempts to try to break up ICANN, to destroy ICANN, people don't realize that the only real alternative to an ICANN-type model is a series of national regulations. You would go from the present marketplace to something which is nationally licensed all around the world. That's a big change, and I think most of the players are saying, "No, we don't want to be in that space." Q: Has there been pressure to take any of this away from ICANN, to take some authority away? A: Yes. There are about 20,000 people in our community who are involved on a somewhat regular basis with the issues we deal with. It's probably getting bigger. I'm increasingly surprised at meetings I'm asked to, where I find out the people in the room know a lot about ICANN. I'm thinking, "Why would you?" But they do. We have a staff of about 120 people now. We have a board of 21, and we've got around 2,000 regularly attending volunteers distributed all around the world. The consequence is that running ICANN is like running a business or a political party. It's got a lot of similarities of different groups coming together, of having factions talk to factions, working through processes, people coming to common policy, and running a diplomatic service because we deal with every country in the world. The element you point out is this voice of American imperialism. It's certainly something I've had to deal with a lot over the last 10 years, and I think one of the things we have shown and continue to show in ICANN is look - you can't wish away history. There's an origin of where this all came from. But on the other side is ICANN - ICANN got stronger and more people (from different places) have participated, and the more ICANN has engaged in issues that address the rest of the world, the more there's been a sense that ICANN is not the cat's paw of the United States. You remember what happened here in the 1990s when there was the Bellheads and the Netheads debate (engineers who grew up in the telephone industry versus the engineers who knew the Internet)? A lot of countries had the same thing going on. You've had the security forces, broadly defined, who don't like what's going on because they naturally like command and control, and they're gradually getting used to things changing. In India only four years ago, I can still remember being in conversation with ministers who were part of the department that was very anti-Internet, and the other (department) was pro-information technology. That's all gone. It's all changed in a relatively short period of time. Our links with the United States government, which is the Joint Project Agreement with the Department of Commerce and the procurement contract for the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) functions, are still there. People still raise them. But I think we've got a pathway forward to show progress, although we're going to continue to have a close link with United States. We don't dispute that. So it's a balancing trick. I do suspect that for a couple of years in some parts of the world we became a bit of a proxy for U.S. foreign policy - and that has been noticeably different since the election. Q: The big story this year has been the global economic downturn. How has that affected ICANN, or has it? A: We take a pretty conservative approach to potential downturns and revenue streams, so that's part of the reason why our expenditures are not over our revenues, even though we're nonprofit. There was an expectation that the top-level domain space would go flat and the country codes would keep increasing. From what I've heard, generic top-level domains have not gone flat, at least not so far this year. They continue to grow. I did hear yesterday that at the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, traffic from June to December last year increased by about 50 percent, which might mean that even in periods of downturn people turn to the Internet. I could put a hypothesis to you - if people are losing their jobs, they may decide they want to set up home businesses, and if you set up a home business, one of the things you do is get yourself a domain name. Participating in this interview were staff writers Deborah Gage, Benny Evangelista and Verne Kopytoff, and columnist Andrew S. Ross. This article appeared on page K - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu May 14 06:16:14 2009 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:16:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: WG: Twomey interview on ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:31:02AM +0200, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote a message of 174 lines which said: > San Francisco Chronicle When posting things found on the Web, always provide the original address, so that people may check instead on relying on the (possibly altered) version. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BU0117E65J.DTL&sn=003&sc=734 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 06:45:50 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:45:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] China on IGF References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Attached is FYI the transcripts from the Chinese intervention in the open IGF Consultations yesterday in Geneva on URL Blocking and the end of the IGF. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG May 2009.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 127121 bytes Desc: MAG May 2009.docx URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 14 09:23:04 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:23:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: China on IGF References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here it is again: wolfgang IGF Consultations Full Transcript Geneva Morning Session: May I turn to China, and then after that, I'm going to sort of conscript Egypt into speaking. >>CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the delegation of China, I would like to present the position of the government of China on the fourth session of the IGF. First of all, on the title -- the global title of the meeting, the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." We think that this topic is very closely linked to the international financial crisis we're going through at the moment. And in addition, it proves that the United Nations continue to work in order to promote the Internet. As we have said in February, the rights and principles for Internet is not an appropriate theme because the words "rights and principles" don't have an appropriate definition. As a meeting of the United Nations, it is not appropriate to adopt a theme which is not properly defined. And on this matter, we suggest that we discuss the definition of "rights and principles" first of all, the workshop level. Honorable Chairman, secondly, on the management of critical resources, the delegation of China feels that, first of all, the title of this theme should be "managing the critical Internet resources." We feel that this title has been defined last year, after extensive discussions. And we think that this is a fairly neutral title. At the same time, it is a very sensitive theme, and we would suggest that we continue using this title this year. Also, we would like to stress the fact that under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme and that it's not because we're going to reexamine JPA in September that we can't discuss it at the fourth session of the IGF. On the opposite, it's because we're going to do this in September that we should do it in IGF, too. Thirdly, now, as to security, the delegation of China feels that this is a very important question. At the present time, security in the Internet, on the Internet and cybercrime is something that has become a worldwide enemy. And here we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level. We also think that there are some vital matters that have not been incorporated on this theme, for instance, how do we promote open source or intellectual property or traditional library resources. These are all very important questions in order to promote dissemination of knowledge. We also think that this is a theme which should be discussed in the opening title. We have also noted that some have talked about the URL blocking. On the URL blocking, this is a very sensitive matter. In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of doing. IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From valeriab at apc.org Thu May 14 09:32:28 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:32:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] AW: China on IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks a lot, Wolfgang. VB 2009/5/14 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Here it is again: > > wolfgang > > > IGF Consultations Full Transcript > > Geneva > > Morning Session: > > May I turn to China, and then after that, I'm going to sort of conscript > Egypt into speaking. > > >>CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf > of the delegation of China, I would like to present the position of the > government of China on the fourth session of the IGF. > > First of all, on the title -- the global title of the meeting, the > delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an > opportunity for all." We think that this topic is very closely linked to > the international financial crisis we're going through at the moment. And > in addition, it proves that the United Nations continue to work in order to > promote the Internet. As we have said in February, the rights and > principles for Internet is not an appropriate theme because the words > "rights and principles" don't have an appropriate definition. As a meeting > of the United Nations, it is not appropriate to adopt a theme which is not > properly defined. > > And on this matter, we suggest that we discuss the definition of "rights > and principles" first of all, the workshop level. > > Honorable Chairman, secondly, on the management of critical resources, the > delegation of China feels that, first of all, the title of this theme should > be "managing the critical Internet resources." > > We feel that this title has been defined last year, after extensive > discussions. And we think that this is a fairly neutral title. At the same > time, it is a very sensitive theme, and we would suggest that we continue > using this title this year. > > Also, we would like to stress the fact that under the theme of "critical > Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme > and that it's not because we're going to reexamine JPA in September that we > can't discuss it at the fourth session of the IGF. On the opposite, it's > because we're going to do this in September that we should do it in IGF, > too. > > Thirdly, now, as to security, the delegation of China feels that this is a > very important question. At the present time, security in the Internet, on > the Internet and cybercrime is something that has become a worldwide enemy. > And here we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all > parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to > promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level. > > We also think that there are some vital matters that have not been > incorporated on this theme, for instance, how do we promote open source or > intellectual property or traditional library resources. These are all very > important questions in order to promote dissemination of knowledge. > > We also think that this is a theme which should be discussed in the > opening title. > > We have also noted that some have talked about the URL blocking. On the > URL blocking, this is a very sensitive matter. > > In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the > interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all > countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. > And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of > doing. > > IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks > about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world > that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against > the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we > talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our > IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 14 10:14:07 2009 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (Kwasi) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:14:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: French net piracy bill signed off Message-ID: <20090514_141407_014249.kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** French net piracy bill signed off ** France passes a law to combat copyright piracy by disconnecting people who illegally download films and music. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8046564.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 10:21:59 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:21:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: China on IGF References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F6C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> hERE IS THE AFTERNOON SESSIONS IGF Consultations Full Transcript Geneva Morning Session: May I turn to China, and then after that, I'm going to sort of conscript Egypt into speaking. >>CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the delegation of China, I would like to present the position of the government of China on the fourth session of the IGF. First of all, on the title -- the global title of the meeting, the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." We think that this topic is very closely linked to the international financial crisis we're going through at the moment. And in addition, it proves that the United Nations continue to work in order to promote the Internet. As we have said in February, the rights and principles for Internet is not an appropriate theme because the words "rights and principles" don't have an appropriate definition. As a meeting of the United Nations, it is not appropriate to adopt a theme which is not properly defined. And on this matter, we suggest that we discuss the definition of "rights and principles" first of all, the workshop level. Honorable Chairman, secondly, on the management of critical resources, the delegation of China feels that, first of all, the title of this theme should be "managing the critical Internet resources." We feel that this title has been defined last year, after extensive discussions. And we think that this is a fairly neutral title. At the same time, it is a very sensitive theme, and we would suggest that we continue using this title this year. Also, we would like to stress the fact that under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme and that it's not because we're going to reexamine JPA in September that we can't discuss it at the fourth session of the IGF. On the opposite, it's because we're going to do this in September that we should do it in IGF, too. Thirdly, now, as to security, the delegation of China feels that this is a very important question. At the present time, security in the Internet, on the Internet and cybercrime is something that has become a worldwide enemy. And here we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level. We also think that there are some vital matters that have not been incorporated on this theme, for instance, how do we promote open source or intellectual property or traditional library resources. These are all very important questions in order to promote dissemination of knowledge. We also think that this is a theme which should be discussed in the opening title. We have also noted that some have talked about the URL blocking. On the URL blocking, this is a very sensitive matter. In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of doing. IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Afternoon Session: >>CHAIR DESAI: I have China. And then Indonesia. >>CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, we are talking about the value of the IGF. And that's a very important question. The delegation of China has followed very carefully the previous statements made. And now the delegation would like to make the following points. Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate. But we have also noted the -- that the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that we can solve this problem. We can also see this kind of discussion taking place. But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up. So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion. I think that this should be a positive result of IGF's work. The work of its next phase should be based on the results achieved in the previous years. We need to launch an intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist in this field of Internet governance. Thank you. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu May 14 10:29:52 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:29:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: French net piracy bill signed off In-Reply-To: <20090514_141407_014249.kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk> References: <20090514_141407_014249.kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all I did read the story and found the legislation somewhat welcome as a deterrent against piracy. A conundrum still exist after reading this phrase from the stoy: "But some consumer groups have warned that the wrong people might be punished, should hackers hijack their computers' identity, and that the scheme amounted to state surveillance". I have had my email hijacked once as some of you have see some commercial message appearing along side my postings sometime ago. Question: won't this legislation be pretext for a rise in th hacking business? Cheers On 5/14/09, Kwasi wrote: > > Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you > should see it. > > > > ** French net piracy bill signed off ** > France passes a law to combat copyright piracy by disconnecting people who > illegally download films and music. > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8046564.stm > > > > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** > Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all > in one daily e-mail > < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > > > > ** Disclaimer ** > The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything > written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or > opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender > have been verified. > > If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know > more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently > asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 14 09:40:11 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:40:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090514151911.DE36DE04CC@smtp3.electricembers.net> At 07:39 14/05/2009, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, >China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: This was expected. We still have one year to technically correct the roots of this "monopoly". It actually results from the Internet technology unilateralism empowered in the lack of OSI Layer 6 "presentation". This question has lead to the blocked debate at the IETF WG/IDNABIS opposing france at large to Vint Cerf (VP, Google). The question is simple : is the way humanity express itself in the digital space and era to be unique and controlled by the US industry leaders gathered in the Unicode consortium and/or in the Internet Society? States are human national communities' self-power on their weapons. That weapons are physical, intellectual, virtual. War is only the continuation of diplomacy with other means. IGF is the much needed consensual step before diplomacy is needed. Time has come to impose some control on some large pirate gangs who led us to the present crisis in the way they use the Internet (using speed to create minute digital money while law still only considers guarranties of daily scriptural money). If the US Government is unable to take care of them, it certainly needs help due to the impact on the rest of the world, in particular due to the Internet unilateralism (technology and resulting governance). This help has to do with Police, Banking regulations, corruption cleaning, renewal of the political class with people educated in the reality of our present world. If strength is needed against merchant monopoly to restore a human centric society (the purpose of the IGF) we have to accept it while trying to minimize it. Surgical bimillion dollars bombing seems not to succeded. When this is over, an international diplomatic cleaning will be necessary before the IGF may efficiently resume in a usefull and efficeint context. My hope is that a technical cleaning, i.e. documenting how to unlock the "presentation" layer, may permit a probably blunt, but complete reshuffling of the Internet context that Developping Countries could accept. In Tunis they had been fooled by Martin Boyle's European make believe attitude which actually helped David Gross to so simply secure the deal for the USA that he was surprised China here answers the Martin Boyle's trick repetition by Mrs. Reding - with her proposition of a G-12. We stop, or China as the 11th member of the G-12 take steps to impose their vision to the NA and EU reps. Question: why does not Paul Twomey renew, because he would not sit there for Australia and IANA, but would do the NZ, through PDT as the ICANN Chair? jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 14 11:24:29 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:24:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: WG: Twomey interview on ICANN In-Reply-To: <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F5A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090514101614.GA26399@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20090514152435.B4B3DE0493@smtp3.electricembers.net> At 12:16 14/05/2009, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:31:02AM +0200, > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > wrote > a message of 174 lines which said: > > > San Francisco Chronicle > >When posting things found on the Web, always provide the original >address, so that people may check instead on relying on the (possibly >altered) version. > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BU0117E65J.DTL&sn=003&sc=734 He confirms "running ICANN is like running a business or a political party.". This is network democracy: a network business and a political democracy. I would be interested in knowing PDT's position on this. Did he expressed himself lately? Or did they "strangled the parrot sqwaking" (miltary for "stop the IFF", the indicator friend or foe). jfc In case some would need to be reminded who PDT is, the silent man : Peter Dengate-Trush. The one who still is the ICANN Chair. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 14 17:26:06 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:26:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation etc). So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more interesting twists and turns. Ian Peter On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, > China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: > > "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent > work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous > speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has > contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... > establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not > enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field > of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to > solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that > we can solve this problem. > > But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough > resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of > dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the > points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to > Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently > reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF > should continue its mandate after the five years are up. > > So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with > extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that > after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that > have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an > intergovernmental discussion." > > I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu May 14 22:47:21 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:47:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by, as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far more extensive international IG structure. Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his hands. And the Brits seem to be going along. Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic human rights. I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all, Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing, aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question, sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet. frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee > (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the > decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole > lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from > entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in > governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. > > It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help > to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make > decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation > etc). > > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. > > Ian Peter > > On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > >> For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, >> China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: >> >> "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent >> work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous >> speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has >> contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... >> establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not >> enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field >> of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to >> solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that >> we can solve this problem. >> >> But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough >> resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of >> dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the >> points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to >> Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently >> reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF >> should continue its mandate after the five years are up. >> >> So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with >> extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that >> after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that >> have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an >> intergovernmental discussion." >> >> I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): >> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 06:53:18 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:53:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290@mail.gmail.com> Being in the open consultation, I would like to elaborate just for the sake of it that there is a political process behind the understanding of an IGF and the countries do take the final decision at the UN general assembly and I doubt that any of these statements reflect the final decision of the general assembly that takes the vote of all its member countries. The political nature of the final agreement to continue the IGF cannot be denied but that is way far down the road. The continuation for the IGF with respect to the review of the IGF will depend on what the UN secretary general shares on the subject in his report. In terms of the general assembly decision sometime in the future, though I feel that some countries might go the negative decision avenue in terms of their voting power but the majority might and especially the OECD countries including the EU/G12 will want the IGF to be continued though this stands as an assumption. One thing I sometimes think is the bashing that starts with such a comment. I feel that as CS we should also be open to negative feedback and that actually is the ground to even work more together. .............. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, China > became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: > > "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent work. >  We agree in principle with what has been said by previous speakers on the > specific aims of the IGF.  We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal > in light of its historic mandate ... establishing dialogue, exchanging > points of view.  But this is not enough to solve the problems.  The real > problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that > exists.  And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about > principles merely that we can solve this problem. > > But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources > and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue > without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of > developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their > points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is > why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five > years are up. > > So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the > mission of the IGF beyond the five years.  We feel that after the five years > are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved.  And > we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion." > > I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning > voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we > are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and > empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > www.consumersinternational.org. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 15 09:04:52 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:04:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290 at mail.gmail.com>, at 17:53:18 on Fri, 15 May 2009, Fouad Bajwa writes >Being in the open consultation, I would like to elaborate just for the >sake of it that there is a political process behind the understanding >of an IGF and the countries do take the final decision at the UN >general assembly and I doubt that any of these statements reflect the >final decision of the general assembly that takes the vote of all its >member countries. The member countries will be voting on a recommendation from the Secretary General, which has previously been passed by CSTD/ECOSOC. How often do such recommendations get reversed in General Assembly (a genuine question)? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri May 15 09:38:13 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 20:38:13 +0700 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70905150638w2d6793aag2f95940ef14f8531@mail.gmail.com> Good answer Roland! On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <701af9f70905150353iefa393fq50a3b33117919290 at mail.gmail.com>, at > 17:53:18 on Fri, 15 May 2009, Fouad Bajwa writes >> >> Being in the open consultation, I would like to elaborate just for the >> sake of it that there is a political process behind the understanding >> of an IGF and the countries do take the final decision at the UN >> general assembly and I doubt that any of these statements reflect the >> final decision of the general assembly that takes the vote of all its >> member countries. > > The member countries will be voting on a recommendation from the Secretary > General, which has previously been passed by CSTD/ECOSOC. > > How often do such recommendations get reversed in General Assembly (a > genuine question)? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sun May 17 05:30:12 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 05:30:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote: > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can > write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion. And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will endorse continuation, it may not. So, in that unlikely event, is there a plan B? I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one. The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a national and regional process. Do these national and regional processes rely on the UN in any way? Would they wither away? Or might this national and regional process have to ability to reconstitute the IGF should the UN governments decide against continuing it? And would these national and regional initiatives be enough to legitimize the activity? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 17 06:09:32 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:09:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" References: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F8B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri asks the right question. What a Plan B could be? If we consider that the whole process is bottom up it would be rather natural that at the top of national and regional IGFs there would be a global/international IGF. If it brings extra value to the stakleholders they will decide independently from an IGO to continue. If the IGF has got an authority and legitimacy in its own, there is no need to get the blessing from ALL governments. The good question is when such a critical mass for continuation is achieved? So far we are still in the very early days of this experiment and I am afraind that there are folks our who want to kill the baby in the craddle. In the long run multistakeholderism undermines established (and comfortable) power positions. Be not surprised that some groups are not happy with this "unusual beast" called IGF. This is one reason for my proposal to have a workshop/best practice forum in Sharm el Sheikh where governments, private sector, civil socierty and technical community stakeholders report to each other what they have learned in the last four years from the interaction with the other stakeholders. I would be interested to hear what the Chinese government (or the Brazilian, US, German, Saudi Arabian government) has to tell, what they benefited (or not) from dialogue with private sector, cibvil society and technical community. And I would be also interested to hear what Google & Co. have benefited from the IGF dialgue wioth governments, and civil society/the users. BTW a UN General Assembly resolutions does not need consensus. It needs just simple majority of the member states, participating in the voting. Only in the security council China has a veto right, But the IGF is not an issue related to international security (could be later if cybersecurity is seen as an element of peace/war issues). With other words if there is a UN GA resolution from lets say 150 (in favour) : 10 (against) with 30 abstentions, it would be difficult for the Secretary General to say no. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Gesendet: So 17.05.2009 11:30 An: Governance List Betreff: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote: > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can > write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion. And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will endorse continuation, it may not. So, in that unlikely event, is there a plan B? I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one. The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a national and regional process. Do these national and regional processes rely on the UN in any way? Would they wither away? Or might this national and regional process have to ability to reconstitute the IGF should the UN governments decide against continuing it? And would these national and regional initiatives be enough to legitimize the activity? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch Sun May 17 06:56:46 2009 From: Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch (Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:56:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to the session Libraries driving access to the knowledge 21th May Geneva Message-ID: <4a0fed6e.17d.4cab.1718334839@unil.ch> Dear all, You are kindly invitated to participate at Libraries Driving Access to Knowledge (Thursday May 21 11.00 - 12.30, Geneva (Switzerland) ITU Room B2 IFLA, in association with SLIR (Swiss librarians for International Relations) and the Association of International Librarians and Information Specialists (AILIS) will be organising a special session on 'Libraries Driving Access to Knowledge' at the forthcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva, on May 21st 2009. The session will explain the concept of libraries as the driving engines behind access to knowledge, and introduce brief presentations (some on video) on groundbreaking library activities around the world that are redefining what libraries can do for their users in the digital age. The aim of the session is to make participants aware of what libraries are doing, and to have an open discussion on how libraries might partner with other organisations to innovate and use new technologies at a local level to increase access to knowledge. More info: on ifla web site and on http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/index.html ...... The IFLA president elect Ellen Tise will be panelist on 18th May 14h30-16h at the High Level Panel Accessing Knowledge. http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/hg_lev_pan1.html Kind regards Danielle Mincio, Member of IFLA Governing Board 2007-2009 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sun May 17 13:12:44 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 13:12:44 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F8B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718F8B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 17 May 2009, at 06:09, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > BTW a UN General Assembly resolutions does not need consensus. It > needs just simple majority of the member states, participating in > the voting. a really good point. so while a plan b is contemplated by those whose tendency is to look to emergency planning, maybe those who can influence their voting countries should influence their voting countries. it may not be the best way to make global policy that effects us all, but when lobbying is the only game in town, then start counting the votes. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 17 12:23:32 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 18:23:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF References: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> Message-ID: <20090517191540.B58F6A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> At 12:09 17/05/2009, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Avri asks the right question. What a Plan B could be? Wolfgang, There is a simple test. The IDNgTLD constituency. On May 23rd, ICANN says if they want to stay US centered or internationalized in accepting or not that constituency. http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm This is not what we really want (we want multilingualization), but to answer no would mean that ICANN does not want a global Internet if it is not US coordinated. And payed. The opposition to the continuation of the IGF as we could read it is nothing to do with the IGF, but to the continuation of it being paid by ICANN. This is why some want to improve it as a G11+ICANN, and others want to close it to protect the world from the "+ICANN". Why did Paul Towmey resigned? He only had a chance to stay: Internationalized Internet. No one wants it. Some want the Internationalized Googlenet. Others want the Multilingual Internet. Others wants a free (from US and from money) Internet (they call it a neutral internet when they add from "technology"). May be too much to ask for. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 17 16:13:54 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 22:13:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> References: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905171313j5e8d442dja540f03df485d362@mail.gmail.com> Even though IGF has moved one step ahead, IMHO is that the multilateral nature of the IGF may be revoked if the UN GA says no need. The regional processes should continue since thez are less affected by multilateral intervention from the UNGA. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote: > >> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off >> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more >> interesting twists and turns. > > > I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion. > > And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will endorse > continuation, it may not. > > So, in that unlikely  event, is there a plan B? > > I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one. > > The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a > national and regional process.  Do these national and regional processes > rely on the UN in any way?  Would they wither away? > > Or might this national and regional process have to ability to reconstitute > the IGF should the UN governments decide against continuing it?  And would > these national and regional initiatives be enough to legitimize the > activity? > > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun May 17 19:21:57 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 19:21:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> References: ,<77492F4D-031C-4686-AE57-DD881A4B8C4E@acm.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1C6C8F08@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Avri, I agree both with your advocacy advice on a future GA vote; but also agree a global IGF could be reconsituted without UN by the regional IGFs - if 1) at least 1 nation (or other deep pocket like a foundation) would bankroll a few re-start years; and 2) some minimal groundwork/contingency planning is done in advance to make 1 a possibility. As this implies the IGF could continue with or without governments/the UN sitting at the head table, it might encourage governments like China to reconsider if they would really prefer that outcome. Lee ________________________________________ From: Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:30 AM To: Governance List Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote: > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can > write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion. And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will endorse continuation, it may not. So, in that unlikely event, is there a plan B? I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one. The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a national and regional process. Do these national and regional processes rely on the UN in any way? Would they wither away? Or might this national and regional process have to ability to reconstitute the IGF should the UN governments decide against continuing it? And would these national and regional initiatives be enough to legitimize the activity? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 18 09:03:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:33:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4A115CAF.8020200@itforchange.net> Carlos I strongly share your concerns, and think this may be the time of reckoning for the global civil society - if it exists in IG arena - to introspect and see if they can figure out what best can it do in these circumstances. Apart from acting at other global and national fora, it is important we revisit what we did right or wrong vis a vis supporting and shaping the IGF, and what are our options ahead. For the IGC as a group to be able to do this however we need to able to share some fundamental values that we all cherish, and a conception of people's rights in the emerging information society paradigm. What has happened in France, and the way the IG scene is increasingly getting ITU-centric, could hopefully act as an eye opener. I do feel that we have a strong collective responsibility in this regard, since IGC is perhaps the only geographically representative CS group in this area. But I do get told often that I tend to put unrealistic expectations on the IGC :) . I will share my impressions of the MAG meeting and the open consultations after the official summary is out, in a day or two. Parminder Carlos Afonso wrote: > On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by, > as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be > considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and > so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far > more extensive international IG structure. > > Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the > French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress > Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy > relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can > imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will > do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his > hands. And the Brits seem to be going along. > > Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments > throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western > democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian > bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know > it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the > international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly > nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic > human rights. > > I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about > the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all, > Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing, > aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question, > sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of > China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee >> (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the >> decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole >> lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from >> entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in >> governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. >> >> It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help >> to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make >> decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation >> etc). >> >> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off >> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more >> interesting twists and turns. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> >> >> >>> For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, >>> China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: >>> >>> "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent >>> work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous >>> speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has >>> contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... >>> establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not >>> enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field >>> of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to >>> solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that >>> we can solve this problem. >>> >>> But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough >>> resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of >>> dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the >>> points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to >>> Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently >>> reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF >>> should continue its mandate after the five years are up. >>> >>> So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with >>> extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that >>> after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that >>> have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an >>> intergovernmental discussion." >>> >>> I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): >>> >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 18 09:59:42 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:29:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited Message-ID: <4A1169CE.4000902@gmail.com> Hi everyone, I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the official summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank those who have already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that there is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF process, one point we made in our statement. The other point we made is that stakeholders not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically approached." Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from people who are not familiar with the process. At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are involved have opportunities for input through statements, the questionnaire, the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube and Facebook. Those who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice can use these tools as well, even if they were not present at the IGF. So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF process on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should be gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do it, we should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me that each of us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder groups. If we are serious about this request in the evaluation, I think we must come up with a possible mechanism. Any thoughts? Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Mon May 18 10:29:38 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:29:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited In-Reply-To: <4A1169CE.4000902@gmail.com> References: <4A1169CE.4000902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8017791e0905180729m763cf2e1mf1f54b789d3948@mail.gmail.com> Ginger, Thank you for the Sharing our view in OC meeting, Perhaps we should start the process of discussing the future course of action as per May OC meeting to prepare plan of action for Sep OC. With Best Regards Sincerely Asif Kabani 2009/5/18 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, > I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. At > the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as well > as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the official > summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank those who have > already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. > > The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the > evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that there > is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF process, one > point we made in our statement. The other point we made is that stakeholders > not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: > > "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such as > constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. > Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, > ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically > approached." > > Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from people > who are not familiar with the process. > > At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are > involved have opportunities for input through statements, the questionnaire, > the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube and Facebook. Those > who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice can use these tools as > well, even if they were not present at the IGF. > > So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF process > on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should be > gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do it, we > should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me that each of > us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder groups. If we are > serious about this request in the evaluation, I think we must come up with a > possible mechanism. > > Any thoughts? Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 18 11:42:21 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:42:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited In-Reply-To: <8017791e0905180729m763cf2e1mf1f54b789d3948@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A1169CE.4000902@gmail.com> <8017791e0905180729m763cf2e1mf1f54b789d3948@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <8017791e0905180729m763cf2e1mf1f54b789d3948 at mail.gmail.com>, at 19:29:38 on Mon, 18 May 2009, Kabani writes >Thank you for the Sharing our view in OC meeting, Perhaps we should >start the process of discussing the future course of action as per May >OC meeting to prepare plan of action for Sep  OC. Sept OC seems to have been cancelled, see the MAG summary: "In light of the good progress made in defining the agenda and programme of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting the MAG decided that there was no need for holding open consultations and another MAG meeting in September. Instead, a meeting to discuss operational matters, open to all interested stakeholders and convened by the Secretariat, will be held instead. The meeting will take place on 16-17 September 2009 in Geneva" http://igf.wgig.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.18.05.2009.rtf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 18 15:40:08 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:40:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> +1 Carlos. Working recently on my analysis of content regulation practices in the WEST, I can vouch for the truth of this observation: > Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are > you doing, aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return > the question, sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, > the likes of China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on > the Internet. Privately, can you tell me more about what is going on here? > We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian > bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know > it. 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon May 18 15:42:03 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:42:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] rights and principles for IGF Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Please forgive my ignorance but academic commitments kept me from attending the Geneva consultation, and I haven't had time to read the transcripts in full. I am almost afraid to ask, but can someone tell me how the theme debate came out? Is IGF Egypt about "rights and principles" or "" 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon May 18 15:49:39 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:49:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. > One ISOC trustee (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. > And once the decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF > attendees a whole lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to > follow calls from entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in > governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. For those of you who do not read the IGP blog - and _of course_ that it is a very, very tiny minority, but it apparently includes Ian ;-) - the Europeans at the May 6 meeting announced their intention to support continuation of IGF, and the ISOC crowd there was falling over itself with praise for the IGF and calls for its continuation. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/5/7/4177879.html Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions > that might help > to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make > decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured > evaluation > etc). > > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we > can write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. > > Ian Peter > > On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > > For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, > > China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: > > > > "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their > excellent > > work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous > > speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has > > contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... > > establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not > > enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field > > of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to > > solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that > > we can solve this problem. > > > > But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough > > resources and don't have the capacities to participate in > this kind of > > dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the > > points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to > > Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently > > reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree > that the IGF > > should continue its mandate after the five years are up. > > > > So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with > > extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We > feel that > > after the five years are up, we would need to look at the > results that > > have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an > > intergovernmental discussion." > > > > I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): > > > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 18 17:46:20 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:46:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited In-Reply-To: <4A1169CE.4000902@gmail.com> Message-ID: >From the MAG summary just posted - and those present may want to contribute more information - the review does not seem to have been discussed, except that there will be an IGF session devoted to it. End of story? Rights and Principles seems to have dropped right off the agenda as well - (except for WSIS principles which is something else). Perhaps again those present at MAG might be able to clarify whether this was even raised by anyone present. Clearly again it was raised and supported at OC but the MAG summary doesn't even mention it. Interested in more information on this so we can determine next steps. Ian Peter On 18/05/09 11:59 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi everyone, > I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. > At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as > well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the > official summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank > those who have already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. > > The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the > evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that > there is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF > process, one point we made in our statement. The other point we made is > that stakeholders not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: > > "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind > constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, > such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil > society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > specifically approached." > > Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from > people who are not familiar with the process. > > At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are > involved have opportunities for input through statements, the > questionnaire, the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube > and Facebook. Those who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice > can use these tools as well, even if they were not present at the IGF. > > So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF > process on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should > be gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do > it, we should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me > that each of us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder > groups. If we are serious about this request in the evaluation, I think > we must come up with a possible mechanism. > > Any thoughts? Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 18 17:57:36 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:57:36 +1000 Subject: [governance] FW: IGF Workshop information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have received the following (as my name was attached to the two IGC workshop proposals). The 2 workshops we submitted as a group are 196 and 197. I am interested in all thoughts as to whether and how we might merge these. 197, for instance, seems to have a relatively happy merge with a Diplo workshop on the same subject (net neutrality). 196 (internationalisation/transnationalisation) does have some possibilities but I would welcome suggestions and proposals. Ian Peter ------ Forwarded Message > From: IGF > Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:13:32 +0200 > To: > Subject: IGF Workshop information > > Dear workshop organizer, > > Thank you very much for expressing your interest to hold a workshop in the > fourth annual meeting of the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh. > > This year we received an overwhelming response to the call for workshop > proposals and unfortunately there is not enough room to accommodate all > workshops. > > We noticed that many of the workshop proposals cover similair topics and, like > last year, we are therefore as a first step incouraging the merging of > workshops. Merged workshops will get priority in the allocation of slots and > rooms. > > In addition to that, depending on the nature of the merged workshops, special > slots will be made available, where best practices can be identified around > the session. > > Please note that the workshops should ideally be balanced in terms of > geography and stakeholder representation. This is an important element that > will be considered in the allocation of workshops. > > Taking this into account, please kindly let us know if you are interested in > getting in touch with other workshop organizers. We will then provide you the > contact details for that purpose. > > About deadlines > > You will recall that 15 of June was set for submitting final proposals, but > that workshop organizers could send the list of workshop speakers by 30 of > June. > > Accordingly, the deadline to inform us about the merge is 15 of June. > > We have changed the database system so that now you can login with your > password and edit your workshop. > > We are looking forward to have your collaboration and facilitate the merging > of workshops. Thank you for your understanding. > > Best regards > IGF Secretariat ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 18 22:30:38 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:30:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] rights and principles for IGF In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <16B5CE35-8FCB-43DF-B245-6BCD44613A2E@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2009, at 3:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Please forgive my ignorance but academic commitments kept me from > attending the Geneva consultation, and I haven't had time to read > the transcripts in full. > > I am almost afraid to ask, but can someone tell me how the theme > debate came out? Is IGF Egypt about "rights and principles" or > "" "Internet governance – creating opportunities for all" - which could easily have been worse; at least it mentions Internet governance. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 18 22:48:41 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:48:41 +0800 Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations In-Reply-To: References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <90BDBA71-F5A1-466F-9E4B-0755D3F66DC1@ciroap.org> On 04/03/2009, at 11:29 AM, 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 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. I hate to say "I told you so", but (from the latest MAG meeting summary): "The MAG discussed holding round tables for issues where there is a convergence of views on the principles and the need for action. However, it was felt that this format would need further discussion and that it would be premature to introduce round tables at this stage. Instead, these slots would be given to merged workshops, provided they were sufficiently representative in terms of regional and stakeholder balance." -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue May 19 03:49:26 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:49:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A126486.4020609@wzb.eu> Hi all, the MAG summary reports results, it is not an account of all the debates or positions presented (and rejected). If something is not mentioned in the summary, it doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed. As far as the various positions and their respective strength or support are concerned, the transcript of the public consultation gives much better insights than the MAG summary. Rights and Principles were discussed intensively in the MAG meeting. However, there was no consensus neither on R & R as the overall theme for the IGF meeting nor as a topic for the main session. Again, read the transcript and you get a pretty good idea who objected to a discussion about rights. Geneva principles were suggested as a compromise between those who wanted to so R&R discussed and those who adamantly refused it. WSIS principles provide firm ground and nobody can argue that they are ill-defined (even if they clearly are) or not mentioned in the Tunis Agenda. That is how we ended up with a main session on WSIS principles. Details about the main session havn't been discussed yet. Although the original intention regarding R & R is clearly lost, this topic is flexible enough to accommodate at least some of the aspects relevant to R & R. This was a rather difficult MAG meeting. The trust among members that allowed us to find creative solutions for contested issues wasn't there this time. The upcoming evaluation may play a role here but it is certainly not the only reason. jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > From the MAG summary just posted - and those present may want to contribute > more information - the review does not seem to have been discussed, except > that there will be an IGF session devoted to it. End of story? > > Rights and Principles seems to have dropped right off the agenda as well - > (except for WSIS principles which is something else). Perhaps again those > present at MAG might be able to clarify whether this was even raised by > anyone present. Clearly again it was raised and supported at OC but the MAG > summary doesn't even mention it. > > Interested in more information on this so we can determine next steps. > > > Ian Peter > > On 18/05/09 11:59 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. >> At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as >> well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the >> official summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank >> those who have already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. >> >> The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the >> evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that >> there is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF >> process, one point we made in our statement. The other point we made is >> that stakeholders not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: >> >> "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, >> such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil >> society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues >> like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be >> specifically approached." >> >> Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from >> people who are not familiar with the process. >> >> At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are >> involved have opportunities for input through statements, the >> questionnaire, the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube >> and Facebook. Those who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice >> can use these tools as well, even if they were not present at the IGF. >> >> So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF >> process on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should >> be gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do >> it, we should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me >> that each of us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder >> groups. If we are serious about this request in the evaluation, I think >> we must come up with a possible mechanism. >> >> Any thoughts? Best, Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 19 04:13:46 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 05:13:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in Portuguese. And there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called the Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied by the big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of Justice has made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but most of Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and will probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition party. For further info in English, try: http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-brazil/ http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-brazil-2/ http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access services (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). Thousands of free access services would have to start doing logs and register personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at its worst. Children would be required to identify themselves with formal documents in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. The bill also requires that content providers identify and record visitors !! The funny thing is that most of the content services considered are in foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of expression, and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' operators. Unlike Sarkozy, who wants to catch people doing P2P (who automatically become suspects when doing it), the Azeredo bill turns every Brazilian Internet user into a suspect, even a six-year old using a telecenter. frt rgds --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Cc: "Afonso, Carlos" Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:40:08 -0400 Subject: RE: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > +1 Carlos. Working recently on my analysis of content regulation > practices in the WEST, I can vouch for the truth of this observation: > > > Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are > > you doing, aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now > return > > the question, sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by > step, > > the likes of China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human > rights on > > the Internet. > > Privately, can you tell me more about what is going on here? > > > We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian > > bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we > know > > it. > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 19 04:39:36 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:39:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso wrote: > MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in Portuguese. And > there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called the > Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied by the > big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of Justice has > made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but most of > Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and will > probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition party. > > For further info in English, try: > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-brazil/ > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-brazil-2/ > > http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ > > The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access services > (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). Thousands > of free access services would have to start doing logs and register > personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at its worst. > Children would be required to identify themselves with formal documents > in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. The bill > also requires that content providers identify and record visitors !! The > funny thing is that most of the content services considered are in > foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! > > It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of expression, > and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' operators. > We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" law proposed in UG You can Google up "Interception of telecommunications act uganda". -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 19 04:57:10 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:57:10 +0700 Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations In-Reply-To: <90BDBA71-F5A1-466F-9E4B-0755D3F66DC1@ciroap.org> References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net> <90BDBA71-F5A1-466F-9E4B-0755D3F66DC1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905190157k3727796fs762a0a0089187465@mail.gmail.com> In my personal opinion and strong support of this, that its time to create or identify the link between Internet Governance and Development or simply said IG4D. From the continuous sharing of IG4D and support by many members of the open consultations as well as support by many in the MAG, the topic was discussed but dropped to be the theme of a proposed session. So I would say, I felt drained the second day! Deprived infact. Well that may just be my own feeling. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/03/2009, at 11:29 AM, 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 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. > > I hate to say "I told you so", but (from the latest MAG meeting summary): > > "The MAG discussed holding round tables for issues where there is a > convergence of views on the principles and the need for action.  However, it > was felt that this format would need further discussion and that it would be > premature to introduce round tables at this stage. Instead, these slots > would be given to merged workshops, provided they were sufficiently > representative in terms of regional and stakeholder balance." > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning > voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we > are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and > empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > www.consumersinternational.org. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 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 email at hakik.org Tue May 19 07:44:00 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:44:00 +0100 Subject: MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905190157k3727796fs762a0a0089187465@mail.gmail.co m> References: <49AA6D56.20904@itforchange.net> <174B9EF39AFD4AB0840683D89782DA76@IAN> <49ACB675.7040604@panos-ao.org> <49AD048C.1040409@itforchange.net> <90BDBA71-F5A1-466F-9E4B-0755D3F66DC1@ciroap.org> <701af9f70905190157k3727796fs762a0a0089187465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090519114420.302ACE1CCB@smtp3.electricembers.net> Well, Fouad, I agree with you. Internet governance as an instrument (tool, catalyst, end product, output) to serve the human society leading to what, development - in my opinion (either improved governance, or capacity development, or knowledge development, or whichever you may interpret), in whatever form it may take or be shaped. Thanking you, Hakik At 09:57 AM 5/19/2009, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >In my personal opinion and strong support of this, that its time to >create or identify the link between Internet Governance and >Development or simply said IG4D. > > From the continuous sharing of IG4D and support by many members of the >open consultations as well as support by many in the MAG, the topic >was discussed but dropped to be the theme of a proposed session. > >So I would say, I felt drained the second day! Deprived infact. Well >that may just be my own feeling. > >On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 04/03/2009, at 11:29 AM, 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 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. > > > > I hate to say "I told you so", but (from the latest MAG meeting summary): > > > > "The MAG discussed holding round tables for issues where there is a > > convergence of views on the principles and the need for > action. However, it > > was felt that this format would need further discussion and that > it would be > > premature to introduce round tables at this stage. Instead, these slots > > would be given to merged workshops, provided they were sufficiently > > representative in terms of regional and stakeholder balance." > > > > -- > > JEREMY MALCOLM > > Project Coordinator > > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > > www.consumersinternational.org > > > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning > > voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 > countries, we > > are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and > > empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > > www.consumersinternational.org. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >-- > >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa >@skBajwa >Answering all your technology questions >http://www.askbajwa.com >http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Tue May 19 09:03:41 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:03:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure Message-ID: <4A12AE2D.1070705@mdpi.net> Hello from Geneva FYI my presentation, tomorrow at the *WSIS Forum :* Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure ( WSIS Forum, 20 May 2009, Geneva ) *Opening to competition* *the namespace infrastructure * a contribution to the *Facilitation Meeting: WSIS Action Line C2 (ICT Infrastructure) **ITU * 20 May 2009, 11:00 - 12:30 ITU Headquarters, Room C2 Best Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Département des Systèmes d'Information http://syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de Drize 1227 Carouge World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Tue May 19 09:58:33 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:58:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> Dear Carlos, Milton, all: I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow as maximum. In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: Azeredo Bill of Law, et all A good English articles could be found here: "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cybercrime-law-project "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-protest-new-cybercrime-bill "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten online free expression" http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 Best, Katitza On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso > wrote: >> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in Portuguese. >> And >> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called the >> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied by >> the >> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of Justice >> has >> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but most >> of >> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and will >> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition party. >> >> For further info in English, try: >> >> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-brazil/ >> >> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-brazil-2/ >> >> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ >> >> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access services >> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). >> Thousands >> of free access services would have to start doing logs and register >> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at its >> worst. >> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal >> documents >> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. The >> bill >> also requires that content providers identify and record >> visitors !! The >> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are in >> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! >> >> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of expression, >> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' >> operators. >> > > We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" law > proposed in UG You can Google up "Interception of telecommunications > act uganda". > > -- > 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 19 10:11:19 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:19 +0700 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> I am at the WSIS Forum in Geneva at the moment and the ITU presented this as its move on Global Cyber Crime and Terrorism Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have united to form a global cyber-security group. http://www.impact-alliance.org/ You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a ITU Member Country On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda wrote: > Dear Carlos, Milton, all: > > I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow as maximum. > In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: Azeredo Bill of > Law, et all > > A good English articles could be found here: > > "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" > http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cybercrime-law-project > > "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" > http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-protest-new-cybercrime-bill > > "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten online free > expression" > http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 > > > Best, Katitza > > > On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso wrote: >>> >>> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in Portuguese. And >>> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called the >>> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied by the >>> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of Justice has >>> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but most of >>> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and will >>> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition party. >>> >>> For further info in English, try: >>> >>> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-brazil/ >>> >>> >>> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-brazil-2/ >>> >>> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ >>> >>> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access services >>> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). Thousands >>> of free access services would have to start doing logs and register >>> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at its worst. >>> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal documents >>> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. The bill >>> also requires that content providers identify and record visitors !! The >>> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are in >>> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! >>> >>> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of expression, >>> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' operators. >>> >> >> We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" law >> proposed in UG   You can Google up "Interception of telecommunications >> act uganda". >> >> -- >> 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 19 10:39:05 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:39:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The funniest thing is that this Impact initiative looks like a copy of the original CERT initiative, which began at Carnegie-Mellon many years ago and is now a worldwide network of CSIRTs. The Brazilian one is maintained by CGI.br and is playing a significant role in the recent events regarding prevention and repression against cybercrime (including cybercrimes against children), has trained dozens of federal police officers and network operators, and is a relevant reason for the successes which led to the prize given to Lula by the ITU. On top of it, countries do not need to be ITU members to join the CSIRT network :) Someone is of course making a lot of money with this Impact thing... --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:19 +0700 Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > I am at the WSIS Forum in Geneva at the moment and the ITU presented > this as its move on Global Cyber Crime and Terrorism > > Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against > Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have > united to form a global cyber-security group. > http://www.impact-alliance.org/ > > You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a ITU > Member Country > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > wrote: > > Dear Carlos, Milton, all: > > > > I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow as > maximum. > > In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: Azeredo > Bill of > > Law, et all > > > > A good English articles could be found here: > > > > "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" > > > http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cyb > ercrime-law-project > > > > "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" > > > http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-p > rotest-new-cybercrime-bill > > > > "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten > online free > > expression" > > http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 > > > > > > Best, Katitza > > > > > > On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso > wrote: > >>> > >>> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in > Portuguese. And > >>> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called > the > >>> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied > by the > >>> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of > Justice has > >>> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but > most of > >>> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and will > >>> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition party. > >>> > >>> For further info in English, try: > >>> > >>> > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-braz > il/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-braz > il-2/ > >>> > >>> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ > >>> > >>> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access > services > >>> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). > Thousands > >>> of free access services would have to start doing logs and > register > >>> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at its > worst. > >>> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal > documents > >>> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. > The bill > >>> also requires that content providers identify and record visitors > !! The > >>> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are > in > >>> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! > >>> > >>> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of > expression, > >>> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' > operators. > >>> > >> > >> We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" law > >> proposed in UG   You can Google up "Interception of > telecommunications > >> act uganda". > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 19 10:37:32 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:37:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933 at mail.gmail.com>, at 21:11:19 on Tue, 19 May 2009, Fouad Bajwa writes >Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against >Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have >united to form a global cyber-security group. >http://www.impact-alliance.org/ > >You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a ITU >Member Country Please explain. Only one of the nine Advisory Board members is a Govt/Intergovt person. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 19 10:47:24 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:47:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Further, I navigated through the Impact site, and there is no mention of partnerships with CERT or any other proven expert organization in the field. Strange... --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "carlos a. afonso" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , "Katitza Rodriguez Pereda" Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:39:05 -0300 Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > The funniest thing is that this Impact initiative looks like a copy > of > the original CERT initiative, which began at Carnegie-Mellon many > years > ago and is now a worldwide network of CSIRTs. The Brazilian one is > maintained by CGI.br and is playing a significant role in the recent > events regarding prevention and repression against cybercrime > (including > cybercrimes against children), has trained dozens of federal police > officers and network operators, and is a relevant reason for the > successes which led to the prize given to Lula by the ITU. > > On top of it, countries do not need to be ITU members to join the > CSIRT > network :) > > Someone is of course making a lot of money with this Impact thing... > > --c.a. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Carlos A. Afonso > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > > Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:19 +0700 > Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > > > I am at the WSIS Forum in Geneva at the moment and the ITU > presented > > this as its move on Global Cyber Crime and Terrorism > > > > Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against > > Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have > > united to form a global cyber-security group. > > http://www.impact-alliance.org/ > > > > You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a > ITU > > Member Country > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > > wrote: > > > Dear Carlos, Milton, all: > > > > > > I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow > as > > maximum. > > > In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: > Azeredo > > Bill of > > > Law, et all > > > > > > A good English articles could be found here: > > > > > > "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" > > > > > > http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cyb > > ercrime-law-project > > > > > > "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" > > > > > > http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-p > > rotest-new-cybercrime-bill > > > > > > "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten > > online free > > > expression" > > > http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 > > > > > > > > > Best, Katitza > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in > > Portuguese. And > > >>> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called > > the > > >>> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied > > by the > > >>> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of > > Justice has > > >>> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but > > most of > > >>> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and > will > > >>> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition > party. > > >>> > > >>> For further info in English, try: > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-braz > > il/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-braz > > il-2/ > > >>> > > >>> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ > > >>> > > >>> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access > > services > > >>> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). > > Thousands > > >>> of free access services would have to start doing logs and > > register > > >>> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at > its > > worst. > > >>> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal > > documents > > >>> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. > > The bill > > >>> also requires that content providers identify and record > visitors > > !! The > > >>> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are > > in > > >>> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! > > >>> > > >>> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of > > expression, > > >>> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' > > operators. > > >>> > > >> > > >> We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" > law > > >> proposed in UG   You can Google up "Interception of > > telecommunications > > >> act uganda". > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Tue May 19 18:57:37 2009 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 19:57:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> Dear Fouad, About Impact, you mentionned that we would "all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a ITU Member Country". Considering that the ITU membership includes 191 Member States, could you help me with identifying the 2 or 3 countries in the world that are not part of the ITU? I only know of Kosowo. Abraços, Sérgio 2009/5/19 carlos a. afonso > Further, I navigated through the Impact site, and there is no mention of > partnerships with CERT or any other proven expert organization in the > field. > > Strange... > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "carlos a. afonso" > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , > "Katitza Rodriguez Pereda" > Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:39:05 -0300 > Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > > > The funniest thing is that this Impact initiative looks like a copy > > of > > the original CERT initiative, which began at Carnegie-Mellon many > > years > > ago and is now a worldwide network of CSIRTs. The Brazilian one is > > maintained by CGI.br and is playing a significant role in the recent > > events regarding prevention and repression against cybercrime > > (including > > cybercrimes against children), has trained dozens of federal police > > officers and network operators, and is a relevant reason for the > > successes which led to the prize given to Lula by the ITU. > > > > On top of it, countries do not need to be ITU members to join the > > CSIRT > > network :) > > > > Someone is of course making a lot of money with this Impact thing... > > > > --c.a. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Carlos A. Afonso > > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > > > > Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:19 +0700 > > Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > > > > > I am at the WSIS Forum in Geneva at the moment and the ITU > > presented > > > this as its move on Global Cyber Crime and Terrorism > > > > > > Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against > > > Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have > > > united to form a global cyber-security group. > > > http://www.impact-alliance.org/ > > > > > > You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a > > ITU > > > Member Country > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Carlos, Milton, all: > > > > > > > > I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow > > as > > > maximum. > > > > In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: > > Azeredo > > > Bill of > > > > Law, et all > > > > > > > > A good English articles could be found here: > > > > > > > > "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" > > > > > > > > > http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cyb > > > ercrime-law-project > > > > > > > > "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" > > > > > > > > > http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-p > > > rotest-new-cybercrime-bill > > > > > > > > "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten > > > online free > > > > expression" > > > > http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, Katitza > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso > > > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in > > > Portuguese. And > > > >>> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called > > > the > > > >>> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied > > > by the > > > >>> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of > > > Justice has > > > >>> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but > > > most of > > > >>> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and > > will > > > >>> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition > > party. > > > >>> > > > >>> For further info in English, try: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-braz > > > il/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-braz > > > il-2/ > > > >>> > > > >>> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ > > > >>> > > > >>> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access > > > services > > > >>> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). > > > Thousands > > > >>> of free access services would have to start doing logs and > > > register > > > >>> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at > > its > > > worst. > > > >>> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal > > > documents > > > >>> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. > > > The bill > > > >>> also requires that content providers identify and record > > visitors > > > !! The > > > >>> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are > > > in > > > >>> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! > > > >>> > > > >>> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of > > > expression, > > > >>> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' > > > operators. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" > > law > > > >> proposed in UG You can Google up "Interception of > > > telecommunications > > > >> act uganda". > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards. > > > -------------------------- > > > Fouad Bajwa > > > @skBajwa > > > Answering all your technology questions > > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 20 04:21:29 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:21:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B485@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B485@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: apologies for digging up an old thread..... On tFri, Sep 7, 2007 at 2:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Haven't we already moved well beyond this tired ITU vs. ICANN dichotomy? aprparently not: http://nro.net/news/nav6-survey-response.html Here in Cairo, we are actually maiking CIR policy, while in Geneva y'all are talking about making policy. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed May 20 04:44:16 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 05:44:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A13C2E0.7050102@rits.org.br> This is actually not a problem regarding access to information -- the material being produced by ITU on cybersecurity and the outreach of Impacta will not be limited to ITU membership, I learned yesterday. Problems of another nature arise in the work of ITU, however, like ignoring the cybersecutiry networks already existing in proposing a toolkit and guide for governments. This is also the case of Impacta, which is in Malaysia, where there is a member of the CSIRT net, and I could not find any mention of a relationship neither in their site or in their speeches and printed materials. BTW, according to ISO and ICANN there are about 243 ccTLDs, roughly mapping into about the same number of countries. I guess then there are more than just "2 or 3" countries not belonging to the ITU. --c.a. Sergio Alves Junior wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > About Impact, you mentionned that we would "all be amazed that you can only > participate if you are a ITU Member Country". > > Considering that the ITU membership includes 191 Member States, could you > help me with identifying the 2 or 3 countries in the world that are not part > of the ITU? I only know of Kosowo. > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > 2009/5/19 carlos a. afonso > >> Further, I navigated through the Impact site, and there is no mention of >> partnerships with CERT or any other proven expert organization in the >> field. >> >> Strange... >> >> --c.a. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "carlos a. afonso" >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , >> "Katitza Rodriguez Pereda" >> Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:39:05 -0300 >> Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should >> >>> The funniest thing is that this Impact initiative looks like a copy >>> of >>> the original CERT initiative, which began at Carnegie-Mellon many >>> years >>> ago and is now a worldwide network of CSIRTs. The Brazilian one is >>> maintained by CGI.br and is playing a significant role in the recent >>> events regarding prevention and repression against cybercrime >>> (including >>> cybercrimes against children), has trained dozens of federal police >>> officers and network operators, and is a relevant reason for the >>> successes which led to the prize given to Lula by the ITU. >>> >>> On top of it, countries do not need to be ITU members to join the >>> CSIRT >>> network :) >>> >>> Someone is of course making a lot of money with this Impact thing... >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Carlos A. Afonso >>> Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Fouad Bajwa >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda >>> >>> Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:19 +0700 >>> Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should >>> >>>> I am at the WSIS Forum in Geneva at the moment and the ITU >>> presented >>>> this as its move on Global Cyber Crime and Terrorism >>>> >>>> Impact (The International Multilateral Partnership Against >>>> Cyber-Terrorism) is a coalition of twenty-six countries that have >>>> united to form a global cyber-security group. >>>> http://www.impact-alliance.org/ >>>> >>>> You will all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a >>> ITU >>>> Member Country >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda >>>> wrote: >>>>> Dear Carlos, Milton, all: >>>>> >>>>> I will work in my report of the meeting today or early tomorrow >>> as >>>> maximum. >>>>> In the meantime, regarding cybercrime discussion in Brazil: >>> Azeredo >>>> Bill of >>>>> Law, et all >>>>> >>>>> A good English articles could be found here: >>>>> >>>>> "Access versus surveillance: Brazilian cybercrime law project" >>>>> >>> http://icommons.org/articles/access-versus-surveillance-brazilian-cyb >>>> ercrime-law-project >>>>> "Censura Não!: Brazilian Bloggers Protest New Cybercrime Bill" >>>>> >>> http://opennet.net/blog/2008/07/censura-n%C3%A3o-brazilian-bloggers-p >>>> rotest-new-cybercrime-bill >>>>> "Legislators urged to oppose cyber-crime bill likely to threaten >>>> online free >>>>> expression" >>>>> http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27917 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, Katitza >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 19, 2009, at 4:39 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:13 AM, carlos a. afonso >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> MM, there is a lot of material, unfortunately mostly in >>>> Portuguese. And >>>>>>> there is a strong mobilization against the bill of law (called >>>> the >>>>>>> Azeredo Bill of Law, after the name of the senator who, lobbied >>>> by the >>>>>>> big banks, is pushing it through Congress). The minister of >>>> Justice has >>>>>>> made a strong statement against the bill as it stands now, but >>>> most of >>>>>>> Congress have no idea what the senator is talking about and >>> will >>>>>>> probably vote in favor if he or she is from an opposition >>> party. >>>>>>> For further info in English, try: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/internet-surveillance-in-braz >>>> il/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> http://ubisurv.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/internet-surveillance-in-braz >>>> il-2/ >>>>>>> http://0fx66.com/blog/en/internet/ato-contra-o-ai-5-digital/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The law is especially pernicious in the case of free access >>>> services >>>>>>> (like free wireless networks, community telecenters etc etc). >>>> Thousands >>>>>>> of free access services would have to start doing logs and >>>> register >>>>>>> personal ID data on users -- and this is were the bill is at >>> its >>>> worst. >>>>>>> Children would be required to identify themselves with formal >>>> documents >>>>>>> in order to use a terminal in a community telecenter and so on. >>>> The bill >>>>>>> also requires that content providers identify and record >>> visitors >>>> !! The >>>>>>> funny thing is that most of the content services considered are >>>> in >>>>>>> foreign servers, far from the reach of Azeredo's claws!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It will mean a brutal violation of privacy and freedom of >>>> expression, >>>>>>> and an incredible burden to all kinds of Internet services' >>>> operators. >>>>>> We have the same kind of "all yourpackets are belong to us us" >>> law >>>>>> proposed in UG You can Google up "Interception of >>>> telecommunications >>>>>> act uganda". >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Regards. >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> @skBajwa >>>> Answering all your technology questions >>>> http://www.askbajwa.com >>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 20 07:51:00 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:51:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <4A13C2E0.7050102@rits.org.br> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> <4A13C2E0.7050102@rits.org.br> Message-ID: In message <4A13C2E0.7050102 at rits.org.br>, at 05:44:16 on Wed, 20 May 2009, Carlos Afonso writes >BTW, according to ISO and ICANN there are about 243 ccTLDs, roughly >mapping into about the same number of countries. I guess then there are >more than just "2 or 3" countries not belonging to the ITU. There are some uninhabited islands in that list [1], as well as territories like Gibraltar, Jersey and Guernsey which are probably represented at the ITU by the likes of the UK. But what this highlights is that there are several different lists of "what is a country", and ISO3166 is just one example. [1] my current favourite is Heard Island; but perhaps the penguins need to get some Internet connectivity first, before they have to worry about the effects of Cybercrime. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 20 09:19:27 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:19:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A35@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I think Fouad was talking about participation by civil society and even private sector. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Sergio Alves Junior [mailto:sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:58 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; carlos a. afonso Subject: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should Dear Fouad, About Impact, you mentionned that we would "all be amazed that you can only participate if you are a ITU Member Country". Considering that the ITU membership includes 191 Member States, could you help me with identifying the 2 or 3 countries in the world that are not part of the ITU? I only know of Kosowo. Abraços, Sérgio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed May 20 11:24:02 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:24:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <4A13C2E0.7050102@rits.org.br> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> <4A13C2E0.7050102@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, Oddly enough, I'm writing this as I listen to you talk about e-poverty on a panel... On May 20, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > This is actually not a problem regarding access to information -- > the material being produced by ITU on cybersecurity and the outreach > of Impacta will not be limited to ITU membership, I learned yesterday. Suggest we need to be more specific here. Whatever the new Impact group plans to do, it's not obvious this affects other ITU work on cybersecurity. For example, the technical standards/recommenations adopted by ITU-T SG 13 on security require access via an ITU TIES account, so non-members cannot really see what's really going on with issues like trace back and digital identity standards. Other components of the Global Cybersecurity Agenda, e.g. the work of the High-Level Experts Group on Cybersecurity, are also quite opaque to outsiders. ITU has set up a platform "for collaboration amongst interested stakeholders in cybersecurity within the framework of WSIS Action Line C5 and the ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda." http://groups.itu.int/Default.aspx?alias=groups.itu.int/gcahleg It might be good if some interested stakeholders from CS were to register, or attempt to, and let us all know how that's going. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Wed May 20 11:52:18 2009 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:52:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A35@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3CB06146-0CB6-4656-9A27-5A3FFB0C5261@datos-personales.org> <701af9f70905190711w62654ff5s63eee96c4e9da933@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba60905191557m7a00ea7bq271fced0be98ddce@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A35@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <490d0ba60905200852t3e86483aye3847de9194f7290@mail.gmail.com> CA, I agree that the UN (and the ITU) does not necessarily represent the whole world, but counting countries by the number of ccTLDs seem just as unreasonable. Mr. Mueller, thank you for the clarification about Fouad's words, the ITU certainly lacks recognizion and interaction with civil society and SMEs; but when it comes to countries' membership, they are largely represented at the Union. Abraços, Sérgio Anatel - Brazil 2009/5/20 Milton L Mueller > I think Fouad was talking about participation by civil society and even > private sector. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sergio Alves Junior [mailto:sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:58 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; carlos a. afonso > *Subject:* Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should > > Dear Fouad, > > About Impact, you mentionned that we would "all be amazed that you can only > participate if you are a ITU Member Country". > > Considering that the ITU membership includes 191 Member States, could you > help me with identifying the 2 or 3 countries in the world that are not part > of the ITU? I only know of Kosowo. > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed May 20 16:24:33 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 01:54:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: <4A115CAF.8020200@itforchange.net> References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <4A115CAF.8020200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello All, China as a nation with a population of 1.3 billion people represents over a fifth of the whole world and for this reason, if not for any other, we need to sit up and listen to anything that China says, though a lot of what China says may be disagreeable. On this instance, I consider the views expressed by China largely respectable, but needs to be bridged in some areas. >>CHINA: the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." That is positive. Irrespective of how this might have disappointed the Rights Coalition, the fact that China endorses the theme of " Internet as an Opportunity for all" is postive and it shows China's inclination to feel very positive about the Interent. >>under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme ... we're going to [discuss] this in September ... we should do it in IGF, too. This indicates that China does not feel that the JPA review in September would be conclusive. Yes, in all probability, the September review could be inconclusive, so China's opinion that Management of Critical Internet Resources should be prominently discussed is a valid point. Also, this implies that China feels that JPA review should stretch beyond the purview of US Government and the topic of JPA review by itself needs to be internationalized. >>Thirdly, now, as to security, ... we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level. >>In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of doing. Governments always tend to emphaize Security in such a way that Privacy and Openness are traded off in the name of Security. China says that all countries are in the process of filtering certain Internet sites and this is true and disturbing. While China is vocal about this, rest of the world are doing just that, in vaying measures such as by enacting legislations, prompting ISPs, changing policies or by publishing guidelines - so to say that several nations are rather SILENTLY implementing measures that compromise on all the fundamental values of the Internet. China is far more respectable than those nations that quietly pull up legislations, because China at least states its position unambiguously for the world to know. >>IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that. Interesting to note that China takes the views of IGF as that of the position adopted by the United Nations. It is also interesting to note that China talks in terms of a "RIGHT" to block content. (The rights approach is a double-edged sword. Max Senges, are you listening?) >>the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that we can solve this problem. What China says here is very, very true. IGF is a distraction. It is a huge distraction. A thousand participants representing various stakeholders, not quite balanced by People's civil representatives, debate on issues, but what happens out there in legislative chambers of the world is completely unrelated to the discussions that take place at the IGF. Make a list of the policy changes and legislations enacted in various countries in the last 3 years and examine if the legislations enacted in bits and pieces reflect the mood of the IGF in any way. I am alarmed by the seemingly unrelated bits and pieces happening in various countries that completely disregard the reflections at the IGF, especially in matters related to Privacy, Human Rights, Openness, Transparency and more importantly the mutli-stakeholder principle. >>We can also see this kind of discussion taking place. But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up. China's rationale is well explained in the above statement, but it has not come up with an acceptable alternative. My comment follows the next paragraph. >>So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years ... we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion...The work of its next phase should be based on the results achieved in the previous years. We need to launch an intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist in this field of Internet governance. Yes, we need to take a very serious look at the results achieved with a particular emphasis on how the Governments of the world have IGNORED the IGF deliberations and ignored the mood of the IGF. But why "intergovernmental" discussions in place of IGF? That would go towards ending the mutli-stakeholder principle. That implies an attempt to 'capture' the Internet and make it the sole 'property' of Governments? (Exactly the reason why the IGF should continue. The alternatives to IGF would be a complete reversal of the multi-stakeholder process. Irrespective of what little has been achieved, IGF should continue and STRENGTHENED to make it effective.) China's position needs to be a bit fine-tuned. The world needs to respond to China with plenty of respect for its views as it is a nation that is home to 1.35 billion. Some persuasive arguments are needed, a debate is needed with China in its positions on Security issues such as content-blocking, privacy, and mutli-stakeholder principle. We might have enhanced receptiveness from China if the "monopoly" is conceded in favor of a balanced governance. But balanced Governance in unilateral oversight needs to based on the multi-stakeholder principle. This is the fine-tuning that is needed on China's views. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://turiya.wordpress.com Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz Airtel: +91 99524 03099 On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Parminder wrote: > Carlos > > I strongly share your concerns, and think this may be the time of reckoning > for the global civil society - if it exists in IG arena - to introspect and > see if they can figure out what best can it do in these circumstances. Apart > from acting at other global and national fora, it is important we revisit > what we did right or wrong vis a vis supporting and shaping the IGF, and > what are our options ahead. > > For the IGC as a group to be able to do this however we need to able to > share some fundamental values that we all cherish, and a conception of > people's rights in the emerging information society paradigm. What has > happened in France, and the way the IG scene is increasingly getting > ITU-centric, could hopefully act as an eye opener. I do feel that we have a > strong collective responsibility in this regard, since IGC is perhaps the > only geographically representative CS group in this area. But I do get told > often that I tend to put unrealistic expectations on the IGC :) . > > I will share my impressions of the MAG meeting and the open consultations > after the official summary is out, in a day or two. > > Parminder > > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by, > as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be > considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and > so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far > more extensive international IG structure. > > Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the > French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress > Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy > relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can > imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will > do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his > hands. And the Brits seem to be going along. > > Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments > throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western > democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian > bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know > it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the > international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly > nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic > human rights. > > I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about > the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all, > Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing, > aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question, > sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of > China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee > (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the > decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole > lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from > entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in > governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. > > It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help > to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make > decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation > etc). > > So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off > the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more > interesting twists and turns. > > Ian Peter > > On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > > > > For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, > China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: > > "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent > work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous > speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has > contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... > establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not > enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field > of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to > solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that > we can solve this problem. > > But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough > resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of > dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the > points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to > Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently > reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF > should continue its mandate after the five years are up. > > So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with > extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that > after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that > have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an > intergovernmental discussion." > > I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed May 20 17:46:15 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 03:16:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue" In-Reply-To: References: <4A0CD7B9.2070304@rits.org.br> <4A115CAF.8020200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: some corrections. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > China as a nation with a population of 1.3 billion people represents over a > fifth of the whole world and for this reason, if not for any other, we need > to sit up and listen to anything that China says, though a lot of what China > says may be disagreeable. > > On this instance, I consider the views expressed by China largely > respectable, but needs to be bridged in some areas. > > >>CHINA: the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by > Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." > > > That is positive. Irrespective of how this might have disappointed the > Rights Coalition, the fact that China endorses the theme of " Internet as an > Opportunity for all" is postive and it shows China's inclination to feel > very positive about the Interent. > > >>under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think > that JPA is a very important theme ... we're going to [discuss] this in > September ... we should do it in IGF, too. > > > This indicates that China does not feel that the JPA review in September > would be conclusive. Yes, in all probability, the September review could be > inconclusive, so China's opinion that Management of Critical Internet > Resources should be prominently discussed is a valid point. Also, this > implies that China feels that JPA review should stretch beyond the purview > of US Government and the topic of JPA review by itself needs to be > internationalized. > > >>Thirdly, now, as to security, ... we need to talk about regrouping the > energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the > international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the > Internet at the worldwide level. > > >>In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the > interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all > countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. > And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of > doing. > > > Governments always tend to emphaize Security in such a way that Privacy and > Openness are traded off in the name of Security. China says that all > countries are in the process of filtering certain Internet sites and this is > true and disturbing. While China is vocal about this, rest of the world are > doing just that, in vaying measures such as by enacting legislations, > prompting ISPs, changing policies or by publishing guidelines - so to say > that several nations are rather SILENTLY implementing measures that > compromise on all the fundamental values of the Internet. China is far more > respectable than those nations that quietly pull up legislations, because > China at least states its position unambiguously for the world to know. > > >>IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, > talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside > world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. > against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that > when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated > in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that. > > > Interesting to note that China takes the views of IGF as that of the > position adopted by the United Nations. It is also interesting to note that > China talks in terms of a "RIGHT" to block content. (The rights approach is > a double-edged sword. Max Senges, are you listening?) > (I want to add that I implied that I disagree with China's position that Governments have a right to block content) > >>the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points > of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is > that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we > need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely > that we can solve this problem. > > > What China says here is very, very true. IGF is a distraction. It is a huge > distraction. A thousand participants representing various stakeholders, not > quite balanced by People's civil representatives, debate on issues, but what > happens out there in legislative chambers of the world is completely > unrelated to the discussions that take place at the IGF. Make a list of the > policy changes and legislations enacted in various countries in the last 3 > years and examine if the legislations enacted in bits and pieces reflect the > mood of the IGF in any way. I am alarmed by the seemingly unrelated bits and > pieces happening in various countries that completely disregard the > reflections at the IGF, especially in matters related to Privacy, Human > Rights, Openness, Transparency and more importantly the mutli-stakeholder > principle. > > >>We can also see this kind of discussion taking place. But it's not > enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't > have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further > commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing > countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of > view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we > don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years > are up. > > > China's rationale is well explained in the above statement, but it has not > come up with an acceptable alternative. My comment follows the next > paragraph. > > >>So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending > the mission of the IGF beyond the five years ... we would need to look at > the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an > intergovernmental discussion...The work of its next phase should be based on > the results achieved in the previous years. We need to launch an > intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist > in this field of Internet governance. > > > Yes, we need to take a very serious look at the results achieved with a > particular emphasis on how the Governments of the world have IGNORED the IGF > deliberations and ignored the mood of the IGF. But why "intergovernmental" > discussions in place of IGF? That would go towards ending the > mutli-stakeholder principle. That implies an attempt to 'capture' the > Internet and make it the sole 'property' of Governments? > > (Exactly the reason why the IGF should continue. The alternatives to IGF > would be a complete reversal of the multi-stakeholder process. Irrespective > of what little has been achieved, IGF should continue and STRENGTHENED to > make it effective.) > > China's position needs to be a bit fine-tuned. > > The world needs to respond to China with plenty of respect for its views as > it is a nation that is home to 1.35 billion. Some persuasive arguments are > needed, a debate is needed with China in its positions on Security issues > such as content-blocking, privacy, and mutli-stakeholder principle. > correction: ... a debate is needed with China in its positions on issues such as Security, content-blocking .... > > We might have enhanced receptiveness from China if the "monopoly" is > conceded in favor of a balanced governance. But balanced Governance in > unilateral oversight needs to based on the multi-stakeholder principle. > Correction: balanced Governance in place of unilateral oversight ..... > This is the fine-tuning that is needed on China's views. > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://turiya.wordpress.com > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > Airtel: +91 99524 03099 > > > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> Carlos >> >> I strongly share your concerns, and think this may be the time of >> reckoning for the global civil society - if it exists in IG arena - to >> introspect and see if they can figure out what best can it do in these >> circumstances. Apart from acting at other global and national fora, it is >> important we revisit what we did right or wrong vis a vis supporting and >> shaping the IGF, and what are our options ahead. >> >> For the IGC as a group to be able to do this however we need to able to >> share some fundamental values that we all cherish, and a conception of >> people's rights in the emerging information society paradigm. What has >> happened in France, and the way the IG scene is increasingly getting >> ITU-centric, could hopefully act as an eye opener. I do feel that we have a >> strong collective responsibility in this regard, since IGC is perhaps the >> only geographically representative CS group in this area. But I do get told >> often that I tend to put unrealistic expectations on the IGC :) . >> >> I will share my impressions of the MAG meeting and the open consultations >> after the official summary is out, in a day or two. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by, >> as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be >> considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and >> so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far >> more extensive international IG structure. >> >> Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the >> French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress >> Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy >> relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can >> imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will >> do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his >> hands. And the Brits seem to be going along. >> >> Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments >> throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western >> democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian >> bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know >> it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the >> international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly >> nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic >> human rights. >> >> I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about >> the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all, >> Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing, >> aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question, >> sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of >> China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee >> (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the >> decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole >> lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from >> entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in >> governments who currently appear to be sympathetic. >> >> It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help >> to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make >> decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation >> etc). >> >> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off >> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more >> interesting twists and turns. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday, >> China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF: >> >> "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent >> work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous >> speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has >> contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ... >> establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not >> enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field >> of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to >> solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that >> we can solve this problem. >> >> But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough >> resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of >> dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the >> points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to >> Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently >> reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF >> should continue its mandate after the five years are up. >> >> So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with >> extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that >> after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that >> have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an >> intergovernmental discussion." >> >> I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here): >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 21 05:53:54 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament Message-ID: At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational Golf tournament. This promises to be the mother of all jollies. Any takers? official website is igf09.eg. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu May 21 09:12:03 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:12:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jollies for those who love this very low-energy game (I mean, players sweat more playing chess than golf!). What about soccer?!? --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament > At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. > > Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. > > I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational > Golf tournament. This promises to be the mother of all jollies. > > Any takers? > > official website is igf09.eg. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > http://stateoftheinternetin.ug > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Thu May 21 11:38:54 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:38:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8017791e0905210838w52a2842r1d203c3ee25bebf0@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, Just put my name as player and support in orgnize. With Best Regards Kabani 2009/5/21 carlos a. afonso > Jollies for those who love this very low-energy game (I mean, players > sweat more playing chess than golf!). > > What about soccer?!? > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:54 -0200 > Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament > > > At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. > > > > Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. > > > > I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational > > Golf tournament. This promises to be the mother of all jollies. > > > > Any takers? > > > > official website is igf09.eg. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > http://stateoftheinternetin.ug > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu May 21 11:45:14 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:45:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Latest episode in Civil society involvement in ICANN Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775FED3AD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/5/20/4193044.html____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu May 21 12:23:41 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:23:41 +0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70905210923r6e6b4a84s6e73f34cf24642d9@mail.gmail.com> That's definitely an interesting idea, are beginner allowed for the jolly part? On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, McTim wrote: > At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. > > Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. > > I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational > Golf tournament.  This promises to be the mother of all jollies. > > Any takers? > > official website is igf09.eg. > > -- > 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 > -- 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 dcogburn at syr.edu Thu May 21 12:35:59 2009 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:35:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905210923r6e6b4a84s6e73f34cf24642d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905210923r6e6b4a84s6e73f34cf24642d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <937CDDA7-EBF4-49D8-9D01-82C1C25B3564@syr.edu> Count me in! Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2009, at 11:24 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > That's definitely an interesting idea, are beginner allowed for the > jolly part? > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, McTim wrote: >> At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. >> >> Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. >> >> I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational >> Golf tournament. This promises to be the mother of all jollies. >> >> Any takers? >> >> official website is igf09.eg. >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu May 21 12:49:37 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:49:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1C6C8F21@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I'm with Carlos, a soccer tourney - like the Monty Python skit of the Greek Philosophers match - would be more appropriate given our ponderous thinking and mission. Well I guess the deals can be cut on the golf course as usual : ) ________________________________________ From: carlos a. afonso [ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:12 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament Jollies for those who love this very low-energy game (I mean, players sweat more playing chess than golf!). What about soccer?!? --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament > At today's AfriNIC policy meeting we got an update on IGF09. > > Hotels and venue are quite posh, they even have a golf course. > > I'd like to organise the 1st annual IGF Multistakeholder Invitational > Golf tournament. This promises to be the mother of all jollies. > > Any takers? > > official website is igf09.eg. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > http://stateoftheinternetin.ug > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Thu May 21 15:19:23 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 21:19:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Sharm golf tournament In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905210923r6e6b4a84s6e73f34cf24642d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905210923r6e6b4a84s6e73f34cf24642d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1242933563.4046.1136.camel@anriette-laptop> I am not exactly a golf fan, and I would rather not share what my son Amir thinks of golf, golf courses (particularly ones in the middle of the desert), and golf players... Sometimes sport (and other distractions) can be a good idea during important global events. However, while a bunch of men/people from the internet governance civil society caucus bearing golf clubs is probably a serious security risk/health hazard, it could be quite strategic. Do any of the Chinese delegates play? Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yjpark21 at gmail.com Fri May 22 05:11:02 2009 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:11:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF review Message-ID: Hi Ginger and Ian, Thank you for your drawing attention to IGF Review for our next step. I would like to pass the following clarifications made by IGF secretariat today in the MAG list. - The "formal consultations" will take place in Sharm El Sheikh. - They will be chaired by a senior UN official from UNHQ in New York. - These consultations will be prepared in an online process. - All stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments, either by responding to the questionnaire we have posted or by sending in free form comments. - All contributions received will be summarized in a synthesis document that will be submitted in all six UN languages as an input into the consultations, so that participants have some 'food for thought' they can comment on. - Contributions received after 15 July will still be posted. - The preparatory process does not prejudge the consultations that will take place in Sharm. - The Secretary-General will make his recommendations "on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum" based on the consultations in Sharm, as stipulated by the Tunis agenda. As Ginger pointed out, as of today, we have a big task of how we can embrace the perspectives of those who are not participating in the IGF process as of today with many reasons. Given the limited time, I am afraid whether it is possible to liaise those who are not in the process with the IGF review process if our voices are to be reflected in the Synthesis paper (15 July) for further discussion in Sharm El Sheikh. Hope this clarifies your concerns in IGF Review! YJ On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. At > the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as well > as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the official > summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank those who have > already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. > > The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the > evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that there > is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF process, one > point we made in our statement. The other point we made is that stakeholders > not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: > > "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies > that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such as > constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. > Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, > ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically > approached." > > Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from people > who are not familiar with the process. > > At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are > involved have opportunities for input through statements, the questionnaire, > the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube and Facebook. Those > who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice can use these tools as > well, even if they were not present at the IGF. > > So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF process > on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should be > gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do it, we > should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me that each of > us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder groups. If we are > serious about this request in the evaluation, I think we must come up with a > possible mechanism. > > Any thoughts? Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri May 22 06:23:16 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:23:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ginger and Ian, Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till necessary for a most of developping countries specially in africa. I am agree Ginger position in following sentences :*"The process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically approached."* * *Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who were and remain active in the process of IG in developing countries, more particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many efforts is done in ICT applications but about 70% of the marginalized or disadvantaged population still do not have access to digital technology Can you resend the questionnaire ? I will share it to some colleagues in DR Congo and in Central Africa Baudouin 2009/5/22 YJ Park > Hi Ginger and Ian, > > Thank you for your drawing attention to IGF Review for our next step. I > would like to pass the following clarifications made by IGF secretariat > today in the MAG list. > > - The "formal consultations" will take place in Sharm El Sheikh. > - They will be chaired by a senior UN official from UNHQ in New York. > - These consultations will be prepared in an online process. > - All stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments, either by > responding to the questionnaire we have posted or by sending in free form > comments. > - All contributions received will be summarized in a synthesis document > that will be submitted in all six UN languages as an input into the > consultations, so that participants have some 'food for thought' they can > comment on. > - Contributions received after 15 July will still be posted. > - The preparatory process does not prejudge the consultations that will > take place in Sharm. > - The Secretary-General will make his recommendations "on the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum" based on the consultations in > Sharm, as stipulated by the Tunis agenda. > > As Ginger pointed out, as of today, we have a big task of how we can > embrace the perspectives of those who are not participating in the IGF > process as of today with many reasons. > > Given the limited time, I am afraid whether it is possible to liaise those > who are not in the process with the IGF review process if our voices are to > be reflected in the Synthesis paper (15 July) for further discussion in > Sharm El Sheikh. > > Hope this clarifies your concerns in IGF Review! > YJ > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. >> At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as >> well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the official >> summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank those who have >> already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. >> >> The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the >> evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that there >> is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF process, one >> point we made in our statement. The other point we made is that stakeholders >> not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: >> >> "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such >> as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. >> Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, >> ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically >> approached." >> >> Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from >> people who are not familiar with the process. >> >> At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are >> involved have opportunities for input through statements, the questionnaire, >> the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube and Facebook. Those >> who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice can use these tools as >> well, even if they were not present at the IGF. >> >> So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF process >> on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should be >> gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do it, we >> should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me that each of >> us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder groups. If we are >> serious about this request in the evaluation, I think we must come up with a >> possible mechanism. >> >> Any thoughts? Best, Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 22 14:09:58 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 21:09:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote: > Dear Ginger and Ian, > Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till necessary > for a most of developping countries specially in africa. This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) African IG experience. That to me is a real pity. Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) is beyond me. I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings. We need all the support we can get. There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own initiatives when we easily can! I am agree Ginger > position in following sentences :"The process of consultations should > especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG > issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries including > those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation in > IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > specifically approached." NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10 this week. Several disabled folk as well. > Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who were and > remain active in the process of  IG in developing countries, more > particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many efforts is > done in ICT applications  but about 70% of the marginalized or disadvantaged > population still do not have access to digital technology and the IGF is going to fix this how? -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri May 22 16:55:48 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 06:55:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the JPA ­ which I > think would be a good idea. Below is DOC¹s call for comments with some > suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until June 8 so we probably need to > get something decided fairly quickly if we are to respond. > > Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is that ICANN > needs to embed various principles in its operation. These are in by-laws but > that would appear to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN might be able to > suggest an appropriate mechanism for this. > > > Ian Peter > > > REQUEST FOR COMMENT: > > Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the > Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the > progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management > of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of > private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN > represents. > The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the > issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may > be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and > other empirical data that are not widely published should include > copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. > 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., > stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and > representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector > management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If > so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's > existing processes and structures? > > IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM > PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN > > 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the > coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. > Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector > so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is > this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and > facilitate international participation in the coordination and > management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the > security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and > structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry > leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most > appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and > security of the Internet DNS? > > IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY > INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE > ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS > WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR > PARTICIPATION > > 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA > contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific > milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these > milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be > taken to successfully address them? > > > 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a > series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the > JPA. > Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities > set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN > Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those > responsibilities included activities in the following categories: > security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server > security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, > role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and > corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet > each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If > not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served > in these areas? > > 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. > That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to > increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, > accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, > stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced > competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns > expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been > successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the > community served in these areas? > > 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an > agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the > technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner > that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. > Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place > by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria > should be used to make that determination? > > IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS > TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. > > 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient > safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of > the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder > interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are > these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of > stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what > additional safeguards should be put in place? > > THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO > BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO > EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. > > 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are > to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's > policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the > agreement. What should be included in this report? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri May 22 17:18:04 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:18:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review Message-ID: All, In sympathy with McTim's comments below, I feel compelled to add a similar experience. It illustrates where the need for action is, and my conclusion are similar to McTim's. Two weeks ago I was co-directing a NATO seminar in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. The participants were scientists and government officials from what I call the lesser -stans: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Ubekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. In addition, several people were there from Afghanistan, making a 12-hour drive from kabul. Most of these countries are not rich, and all are Internet-poor. In each of these countries (except Afghanistan), there is a national education and research network, which is key to Internet development in each country. When the scientists were queried regarding what they needed, the clear and universal response was "access, access, and more access," access to bandwidth, to information from other countries, and to collaboration through Internet with their counterparts in the west. The needs of the inhabitants who have access to Internet in these countries are similar. Very few of them would benefit in the short run from what is happening at IGF. It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes that many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework in these countries would help Internet users there. However, few if any of the debates existing in the IGF environment, with the possible exception of a few access issues, will help them. The efforts and resources that might go to attendance at and work with the IGF might better be spent at home. As in Africa, there are ISP and network associations in almost all of these Central Asian countries that are getting both local and international support. These are levers that count, not the results of the IGF debates. So I strongly endorse McTim's advice to the African community: get involved in your existing Internet organizations and use them as the instruments to improve local and national governance arrangements in your countries. If you want to get involved in IGF also, ok, but do so with a clear understanding of that you think you can get out of it that will really help your country. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 9:09 PM +0300 5/22/09, McTim wrote: >On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote: >> Dear Ginger and Ian, >> Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till necessary >> for a most of developping countries specially in africa. > >This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. > >There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. > >When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead >of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less >time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) >African IG experience. That to me is a real pity. > >Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) >instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) >is beyond me. > >I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved >in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings. We need all the support we >can get. >There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some >other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own >initiatives when we easily can! > > >I am agree Ginger >> position in following sentences :"The process of consultations should >> especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG >> issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries including >> those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation in >> IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be >> specifically approached." > >NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10 >this week. Several disabled folk as well. > >> Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who were and >> remain active in the process of IG in developing countries, more >> particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many efforts is >> done in ICT applications but about 70% of the marginalized or disadvantaged >> population still do not have access to digital technology > >and the IGF is going to fix this how? > >-- >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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 22 19:37:02 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 02:37:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi George, Thank you for your eloquence, and of course AfREN is an Af* organisation that was present in Cairo. Best Regards, McTim On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > In sympathy with McTim's comments below, I feel compelled to add a similar > experience.  It illustrates where the need for action is, and my conclusion > are similar to McTim's. > > Two weeks ago I was co-directing a NATO seminar in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. >  The participants were scientists and government officials from what I call > the lesser -stans: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Ubekistan, Tajikistan, and > Turkmenistan.  In addition, several people were there from Afghanistan, > making a 12-hour drive from kabul. > > Most of these countries are not rich, and all are Internet-poor. > > In each of these countries (except Afghanistan), there is a national > education and research network, which is key to Internet development in each > country.  When the scientists were queried regarding what they needed, the > clear and universal response was "access, access, and more access," access > to bandwidth, to information from other countries, and to collaboration > through Internet with their counterparts in the west.  The needs of the > inhabitants who have access to Internet in these countries are similar. > > Very few of them would benefit in the short run from what is happening at > IGF.  It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes that many > of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that liberalization of the > legislative and regulatory framework in these countries would help Internet > users there.  However, few if any of the debates existing in the IGF > environment, with the possible exception of a few access issues, will help > them.  The efforts and resources that might go to attendance at and work > with the IGF might better be spent at home. > > As in Africa, there are ISP and network associations in almost all of these > Central Asian countries that are getting both local and international > support.  These are levers that count, not the results of the IGF debates. >  So I strongly endorse McTim's advice to the African community: get involved > in your existing Internet organizations and use them as the instruments to > improve local and national governance arrangements in your countries.  If > you want to get involved in IGF also, ok, but do so with a clear > understanding of that you think you can get out of it that will really help > your country. > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 9:09 PM +0300 5/22/09, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE >> wrote: >>> >>>  Dear Ginger and Ian, >>>  Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till >>> necessary >>>  for a most of developping countries specially in africa. >> >> This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. >> >> There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. >> >> When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead >> of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less >> time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) >> African IG experience.   That to me is a real pity. >> >> Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) >> instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) >> is beyond me. >> >> I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved >> in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings.  We need all the support we >> can get. >> There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some >> other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own >> initiatives when we easily can! >> >> >> I am agree Ginger >>> >>>  position in following sentences :"The process of consultations should >>>  especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in >>> IG >>>  issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries >>> including >>>  those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation >>> in >>>  IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should >>> also be >>>  specifically approached." >> >> NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10 >> this week. Several disabled folk as well. >> >>>  Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who were >>> and >>>  remain active in the process of  IG in developing countries, more >>>  particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many efforts >>> is >>>  done in ICT applications  but about 70% of the marginalized or >>> disadvantaged >>>  population still do not have access to digital technology >> >> and the IGF is going to fix this how? >> >> -- >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 23 10:45:28 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 07:45:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Coming in late to the discussion and being sympathetic to McTim and George's point I'm wondering whether the issue is that the IGF doesn't really include discussions on issues of much interest to the Developing World and countries in transition (and grassroots users who are the "stakeholders" that interest me) so those folks shouldn't waste their time and money on looking to participate; or alternatively that the way in which the issues of "Internet governance" are being defined are rather too narrow or involve certain assumptions about what is given, what is necessary/possible, what should be included under "Internet Governance" etc. which inevitably excludes these groups (and their concerns) and all but a rather narrow band of fairly elite users/Internet Governance mavens. So maybe its not that folks from Africa or the 'stans (or grassroots users) shouldn't participate but rather that the IGF should open itself up to a broader understanding of what Internet governance issues might include and while doing that provide a more engaging and inclusive enviroment for what would probably be a rather broader and much more diverse range of stakeholders/participants/topic areas for discussion... MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:37 PM To: George Sadowsky Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review Hi George, Thank you for your eloquence, and of course AfREN is an Af* organisation that was present in Cairo. Best Regards, McTim On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > In sympathy with McTim's comments below, I feel compelled to add a > similar experience.  It illustrates where the need for action is, and > my conclusion are similar to McTim's. > > Two weeks ago I was co-directing a NATO seminar in Dushanbe, > Tajikistan. >  The participants were scientists and government officials from what I call > the lesser -stans: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Ubekistan, Tajikistan, and > Turkmenistan.  In addition, several people were there from Afghanistan, > making a 12-hour drive from kabul. > > Most of these countries are not rich, and all are Internet-poor. > > In each of these countries (except Afghanistan), there is a national > education and research network, which is key to Internet development > in each country.  When the scientists were queried regarding what they > needed, the clear and universal response was "access, access, and more > access," access to bandwidth, to information from other countries, and > to collaboration through Internet with their counterparts in the west.   > The needs of the inhabitants who have access to Internet in these > countries are similar. > > Very few of them would benefit in the short run from what is happening > at IGF.  It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes > that many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that > liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework in these > countries would help Internet users there.  However, few if any of the > debates existing in the IGF environment, with the possible exception > of a few access issues, will help them.  The efforts and resources > that might go to attendance at and work with the IGF might better be > spent at home. > > As in Africa, there are ISP and network associations in almost all of > these Central Asian countries that are getting both local and > international support.  These are levers that count, not the results > of the IGF debates. >  So I strongly endorse McTim's advice to the African community: get involved > in your existing Internet organizations and use them as the instruments to > improve local and national governance arrangements in your countries.  If > you want to get involved in IGF also, ok, but do so with a clear > understanding of that you think you can get out of it that will really help > your country. > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~ > > At 9:09 PM +0300 5/22/09, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE >> >> wrote: >>> >>>  Dear Ginger and Ian, >>>  Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till >>> necessary >>>  for a most of developping countries specially in africa. >> >> This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. >> >> There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. >> >> When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead >> of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less >> time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) >> African IG experience.   That to me is a real pity. >> >> Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) >> instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) >> is beyond me. >> >> I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved >> in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings.  We need all the support we >> can get. There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa >> than in some other regions, I don't understand why we don't support >> our own initiatives when we easily can! >> >> >> I am agree Ginger >>> >>>  position in following sentences :"The process of consultations >>> should >>>  especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in >>> IG >>>  issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries >>> including >>>  those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation >>> in >>>  IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should >>> also be >>>  specifically approached." >> >> NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10 >> this week. Several disabled folk as well. >> >>>  Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who >>> were and >>>  remain active in the process of  IG in developing countries, more >>>  particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many >>> efforts is >>>  done in ICT applications  but about 70% of the marginalized or >>> disadvantaged >>>  population still do not have access to digital technology >> >> and the IGF is going to fix this how? >> >> -- >> 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 From avri at acm.org Sat May 23 11:06:10 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:06:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 May 2009, at 17:18, George Sadowsky wrote: > It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes that > many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that > liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework in these > countries would help Internet users there. i read this as saying that outside of local consciousness raising, as you recommend in your next paragraph, the real goal might be developing technology that is more resistant to government control - or at least that takes the government another 10 years to figure out how to control. in either case, are you are saying that the IGF cannot help in these policy issues? not even by building expectations for liberalization, or by shining the light on both positive and negative examples? On 23 May 2009, at 10:45, Michael Gurstein wrote: > ... but rather that the IGF should open itself up to a > broader understanding of what Internet governance issues might > include and > while doing that provide a more engaging and inclusive enviroment > for what > would probably be a rather broader and much more diverse range of > stakeholders/participants/topic areas for discussion... what does this mean? how does the IGF "open itself up to a broader understanding "? to whom is it not listening? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Sat May 23 11:29:27 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 20:29:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8017791e0905230829u78e3f97dl88eb0691009f1312@mail.gmail.com> Greetings Park, Thank you and friends for wonderful work you all are doing in the field of IG, we believe that IGF review process as you have mentioned would be chaired by UN Official form UNHQ NY, we suggest that this its time we do SWOT Analysis on the process, IGF, MAG that can be support in formal consultations we at ISD-RC, Geneva would like to offer you expertise (voluntary) with support from all of you. Please feel free to contact. Again thanking you all for your kindness's and cooperation. With Best Regards Sincerely Asif Kabani email: kabani.asif at gmail.com 2009/5/22 YJ Park > Hi Ginger and Ian, > > Thank you for your drawing attention to IGF Review for our next step. I > would like to pass the following clarifications made by IGF secretariat > today in the MAG list. > > - The "formal consultations" will take place in Sharm El Sheikh. > - They will be chaired by a senior UN official from UNHQ in New York. > - These consultations will be prepared in an online process. > - All stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments, either by > responding to the questionnaire we have posted or by sending in free form > comments. > - All contributions received will be summarized in a synthesis document > that will be submitted in all six UN languages as an input into the > consultations, so that participants have some 'food for thought' they can > comment on. > - Contributions received after 15 July will still be posted. > - The preparatory process does not prejudge the consultations that will > take place in Sharm. > - The Secretary-General will make his recommendations "on the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum" based on the consultations in > Sharm, as stipulated by the Tunis agenda. > > As Ginger pointed out, as of today, we have a big task of how we can > embrace the perspectives of those who are not participating in the IGF > process as of today with many reasons. > > Given the limited time, I am afraid whether it is possible to liaise those > who are not in the process with the IGF review process if our voices are to > be reflected in the Synthesis paper (15 July) for further discussion in > Sharm El Sheikh. > > Hope this clarifies your concerns in IGF Review! > YJ > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. >> At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as >> well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process. Once the official >> summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank those who have >> already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion. >> >> The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the >> evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that there >> is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF process, one >> point we made in our statement. The other point we made is that stakeholders >> not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted: >> >> "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind >> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, such >> as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil society. >> Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, >> ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be specifically >> approached." >> >> Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from >> people who are not familiar with the process. >> >> At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are >> involved have opportunities for input through statements, the questionnaire, >> the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube and Facebook. Those >> who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice can use these tools as >> well, even if they were not present at the IGF. >> >> So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF process >> on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should be >> gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do it, we >> should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me that each of >> us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder groups. If we are >> serious about this request in the evaluation, I think we must come up with a >> possible mechanism. >> >> Any thoughts? Best, Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat May 23 13:45:38 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:45:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Avri, and others, Sure, the IGF can shine a light on positive andnegative examples, and it can stress the desirability of all of the good things that would be present in a better world world, i.e. privacy, security, equal rights for _____ (fill in the blank). My point is that the what happens at IGF is generally not translated into desirable local or regional action, or if it is, with very limited effect, in those countries that perhaps need it the most. I'm talking about Malawi and Tajikistan, not the U.K. This is not to say that the IGF does not have value. Rather, I believe that for a significant number of developing countries, it's more effective to work locally for improving things Internet than by attending IGF. These countries need a lot of help, and people like McTim are in the field helping full time; I also do from time to time, but not full time. I suggest that improving access, with all of its constituent elements such as confidentiality, lack of censorship, etc., offers the greatest opportunity for the benefits of the Internet to spread most effectively. Issues affecting access are for the most part local, not global. The IGF may be one of the right places to address the global issues, but those are likely to be addresses by people other than those working in the trenches at home. Regards, George At 11:06 AM -0400 5/23/09, Avri Doria wrote: >On 22 May 2009, at 17:18, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes that >>many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that >>liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework in these >>countries would help Internet users there. > > >i read this as saying that outside of local consciousness raising, >as you recommend in your next paragraph, the real goal might be >developing technology that is more resistant to government control - >or at least that takes the government another 10 years to figure out >how to control. > >in either case, are you are saying that the IGF cannot help in these >policy issues? not even by building expectations for liberalization, >or by shining the light on both positive and negative examples? > >On 23 May 2009, at 10:45, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>... but rather that the IGF should open itself up to a >>broader understanding of what Internet governance issues might include and >>while doing that provide a more engaging and inclusive enviroment for what >>would probably be a rather broader and much more diverse range of >>stakeholders/participants/topic areas for discussion... > > >what does this mean? > >how does the IGF "open itself up to a broader understanding "? >to whom is it not listening? > >a. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun May 24 03:58:14 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 09:58:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack References: <4A188298.5080104@unige.ch> Message-ID: Hoping that Jean-Louis will soon recover. His email is: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" > Date : 24 mai 2009 01:11:20 HAEC > À : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" > > Objet : [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack > Répondre à : WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance > > > Please post to other lists, since for technical reasons, I cannot use > some email addresses under which I am registered to those other lists. > > > English / Français > > This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, > because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in > medical matters. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society > activist since the beginning > of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the > end of the WSIS Forum > ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing > ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) > on Monday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me > about his > intervention on financing mechanisms. > He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt > down over a table, > With people around him, we laid him on the ground. > I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis > "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. > > Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU > security personnel came > and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) > and he became awake again, uttering some words. > UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move > chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. > It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... > When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had > to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was > successful ! > > Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the > operation, > and to help in all manners he could. > > Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I > accompanied > him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms > on... > He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. > > To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile > phone was dead > ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am > still in Geneva now ), > ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone > > At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. > The concern was about his short term memory. > The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : > without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. > > Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives > ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). > This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. > Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was > waiting for them at > the emergencies.. but finally we met... > Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under > examination; > he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his > determination to win > and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve > > Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the > ITU security, > who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, > calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution > and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. > I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and > most of all > the security agent who saved his life. > > I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is > recovering, > all seems to be progressing very well. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent > ne pas être exacts, > en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de > connaissances dans le domaine médical. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la > société civile depuis le début > du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du > Forum du SMSI > (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de > clôture 12:30 13:00) > le lundi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train > de discuter avec moi à propos de son > intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. > Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et > silencieusement il s'est affaissé sur une table, > Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre > Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis > "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. > > En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une > personne de la sécurité de l'UIT > est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque > et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. > Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont > commencé à déplacer > des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. > Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... > Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les > sauveteurs ont du > le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un > succès! > > Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour > assister à l'opération, > et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . > > Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai > accompagné > avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes > sirènes hurlantes ... > Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de > soins intensifs. > > Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon > téléphone portable était inutilisable. > (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, > en France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), > La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un > téléphone mobile de l'UIT. > > Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu > prometteurs. > La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. > Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : > sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. > > Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa > famille > (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). > Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un > certain temps. > Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins > intensifs, > alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; > .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... > Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était > en cours d'examen; > il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa > détermination de vaincre > et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. > > Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de > la sécurité de l'UIT, , > qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, > m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution > et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT > Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur > gentillesse, et > surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. > > J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa > mémoire à court terme, > et tout semble être en très bonne voie. > > Francis depuis Genève. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis > F. MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http:// > syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de > Drize 1227 Carouge KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/ > groupe_recherche http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI > Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http:// > www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the > Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific > Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : > http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// > www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis- > gov.org web ------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Gov mailing list > Gov at wsis-gov.org > http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 09:12:03 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 15:12:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack In-Reply-To: References: <4A188298.5080104@unige.ch> Message-ID: Merci Francis et merci a Meryem pour cette information. Il convient de reconnaitre que ce processus nous preoccupe a telle enseigne que nos santes subissent. Jean Louis est une force et une tres grande force dans ce processus, une figure modele de la societe civile qui a su faire la conjonction entre anglophone et francophone et aussi lusophone. nous sommes de coeur avec lui. Baudouin Le 24 mai 2009 09:58, Meryem Marzouki a écrit : > Hoping that Jean-Louis will soon recover. His email is: > jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr > > Début du message réexpédié : > > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" >> Date : 24 mai 2009 01:11:20 HAEC >> À : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" < >> gov at wsis-gov.org> >> Objet : [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack >> Répondre à : WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance < >> gov at wsis-gov.org> >> >> Please post to other lists, since for technical reasons, I cannot use >> some email addresses under which I am registered to those other lists. >> >> >> English / Français >> >> This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, >> because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in medical >> matters. >> >> Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society >> activist since the beginning >> of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the end of >> the WSIS Forum >> ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing ceremony >> 12:30 13:00 ) >> on Monday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me about >> his >> intervention on financing mechanisms. >> He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt down >> over a table, >> With people around him, we laid him on the ground. >> I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis >> "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. >> >> Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav Ponder >> (ITU) >> did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU security >> personnel came >> and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) >> and he became awake again, uttering some words. >> UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move >> chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. >> It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... >> When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had >> to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was >> successful ! >> >> Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the operation, >> and to help in all manners he could. >> >> Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I accompanied >> him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms on... >> He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. >> >> To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile phone was >> dead >> ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am still >> in Geneva now ), >> ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone >> >> At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. >> The concern was about his short term memory. >> The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : >> without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. >> >> Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives >> ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). >> This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. >> Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was waiting >> for them at >> the emergencies.. but finally we met... >> Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under >> examination; >> he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his determination to >> win >> and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve >> >> Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the ITU >> security, >> who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, >> calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution >> and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. >> I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and most of >> all >> the security agent who saved his life. >> >> I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is recovering, >> all seems to be progressing very well. >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent ne pas >> être exacts, >> en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de connaissances dans >> le domaine médical. >> >> Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la société >> civile depuis le début >> du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du Forum >> du SMSI >> (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de >> clôture 12:30 13:00) >> le lundi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train de >> discuter avec moi à propos de son >> intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. >> Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et silencieusement il >> s'est affaissé sur une table, >> Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre >> Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis >> "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. >> >> En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav Ponder >> (ITU) >> fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une personne de >> la sécurité de l'UIT >> est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque >> et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. >> Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont commencé à >> déplacer >> des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. >> Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... >> Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les >> sauveteurs ont du >> le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un >> succès! >> >> Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour assister à >> l'opération, >> et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . >> >> Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai >> accompagné >> avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes sirènes >> hurlantes ... >> Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de soins >> intensifs. >> >> Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon téléphone >> portable était inutilisable. >> (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, en >> France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), >> La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un téléphone >> mobile de l'UIT. >> >> Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu prometteurs. >> La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. >> Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : >> sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. >> >> Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa famille >> (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). >> Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un certain >> temps. >> Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins >> intensifs, >> alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; >> .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... >> Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était en cours >> d'examen; >> il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa >> détermination de vaincre >> et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. >> >> Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de la >> sécurité de l'UIT, , >> qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, >> m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution >> et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT >> Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur gentillesse, >> et >> surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. >> >> J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa mémoire à >> court terme, >> et tout semble être en très bonne voie. >> >> Francis depuis Genève. >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. >> MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http://syinf.unige.chFaculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales Universite de Genève >> http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de Drize 1227 Carouge >> KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/groupe_recherche >> http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI Foundation Open Access >> Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org >> muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil >> Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.orgchair Patents & Copyrights : >> http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// >> www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.orgweb ------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Gov mailing list >> Gov at wsis-gov.org >> http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 24 11:10:55 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:10:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack In-Reply-To: References: <4A188298.5080104@unige.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> What shocking news. Here's hoping that Jean-Louis returns to health. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 3:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack > > Hoping that Jean-Louis will soon recover. His email is: > jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr > > Début du message réexpédié : > > > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" > > Date : 24 mai 2009 01:11:20 HAEC > > À : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" > > > > Objet : [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack > > Répondre à : WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance > > > > > > Please post to other lists, since for technical reasons, I cannot use > > some email addresses under which I am registered to those other lists. > > > > > > English / Français > > > > This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, > > because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in > > medical matters. > > > > Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society > > activist since the beginning > > of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the > > end of the WSIS Forum > > ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing > > ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) > > on Monday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me > > about his > > intervention on financing mechanisms. > > He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt > > down over a table, > > With people around him, we laid him on the ground. > > I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis > > "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. > > > > Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav > > Ponder (ITU) > > did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU > > security personnel came > > and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) > > and he became awake again, uttering some words. > > UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move > > chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. > > It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... > > When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had > > to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was > > successful ! > > > > Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the > > operation, > > and to help in all manners he could. > > > > Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I > > accompanied > > him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms > > on... > > He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. > > > > To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile > > phone was dead > > ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am > > still in Geneva now ), > > ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone > > > > At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. > > The concern was about his short term memory. > > The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : > > without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. > > > > Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives > > ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). > > This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. > > Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was > > waiting for them at > > the emergencies.. but finally we met... > > Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under > > examination; > > he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his > > determination to win > > and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve > > > > Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the > > ITU security, > > who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, > > calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution > > and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. > > I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and > > most of all > > the security agent who saved his life. > > > > I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is > > recovering, > > all seems to be progressing very well. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > > > > Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent > > ne pas être exacts, > > en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de > > connaissances dans le domaine médical. > > > > Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la > > société civile depuis le début > > du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du > > Forum du SMSI > > (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de > > clôture 12:30 13:00) > > le lundi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train > > de discuter avec moi à propos de son > > intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. > > Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et > > silencieusement il s'est affaissé sur une table, > > Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre > > Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis > > "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. > > > > En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav > > Ponder (ITU) > > fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une > > personne de la sécurité de l'UIT > > est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque > > et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. > > Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont > > commencé à déplacer > > des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. > > Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... > > Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les > > sauveteurs ont du > > le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un > > succès! > > > > Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour > > assister à l'opération, > > et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . > > > > Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai > > accompagné > > avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes > > sirènes hurlantes ... > > Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de > > soins intensifs. > > > > Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon > > téléphone portable était inutilisable. > > (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, > > en France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), > > La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un > > téléphone mobile de l'UIT. > > > > Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu > > prometteurs. > > La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. > > Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : > > sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. > > > > Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa > > famille > > (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). > > Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un > > certain temps. > > Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins > > intensifs, > > alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; > > .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... > > Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était > > en cours d'examen; > > il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa > > détermination de vaincre > > et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. > > > > Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de > > la sécurité de l'UIT, , > > qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, > > m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution > > et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT > > Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur > > gentillesse, et > > surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. > > > > J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa > > mémoire à court terme, > > et tout semble être en très bonne voie. > > > > Francis depuis Genève. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis > > F. MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http:// > > syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de > > Drize 1227 Carouge KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/ > > groupe_recherche http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI > > Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http:// > > www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the > > Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific > > Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : > > http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// > > www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis- > > gov.org web ------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Gov mailing list > > Gov at wsis-gov.org > > http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Sun May 24 12:27:49 2009 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 18:27:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4a197589.1c05d00a.5fae.2865@mx.google.com> Thank you Meryem, and thank you Francis for having been at his sight in the right moment! Wishing speedy and full recovery, Renate -----Original Message----- From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: dimanche, 24. mai 2009 09:58 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack Hoping that Jean-Louis will soon recover. His email is: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" > Date : 24 mai 2009 01:11:20 HAEC > À : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" > > Objet : [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack > Répondre à : WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance > > > Please post to other lists, since for technical reasons, I cannot use > some email addresses under which I am registered to those other lists. > > > English / Français > > This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, > because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in > medical matters. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society > activist since the beginning > of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the > end of the WSIS Forum > ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing > ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) > on Monday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me > about his > intervention on financing mechanisms. > He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt > down over a table, > With people around him, we laid him on the ground. > I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis > "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. > > Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU > security personnel came > and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) > and he became awake again, uttering some words. > UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move > chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. > It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... > When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had > to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was > successful ! > > Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the > operation, > and to help in all manners he could. > > Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I > accompanied > him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms > on... > He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. > > To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile > phone was dead > ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am > still in Geneva now ), > ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone > > At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. > The concern was about his short term memory. > The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : > without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. > > Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives > ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). > This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. > Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was > waiting for them at > the emergencies.. but finally we met... > Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under > examination; > he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his > determination to win > and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve > > Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the > ITU security, > who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, > calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution > and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. > I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and > most of all > the security agent who saved his life. > > I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is > recovering, > all seems to be progressing very well. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent > ne pas être exacts, > en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de > connaissances dans le domaine médical. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la > société civile depuis le début > du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du > Forum du SMSI > (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de > clôture 12:30 13:00) > le lundi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train > de discuter avec moi à propos de son > intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. > Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et > silencieusement il s'est affaissé sur une table, > Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre > Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis > "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. > > En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une > personne de la sécurité de l'UIT > est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque > et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. > Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont > commencé à déplacer > des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. > Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... > Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les > sauveteurs ont du > le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un > succès! > > Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour > assister à l'opération, > et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . > > Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai > accompagné > avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes > sirènes hurlantes ... > Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de > soins intensifs. > > Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon > téléphone portable était inutilisable. > (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, > en France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), > La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un > téléphone mobile de l'UIT. > > Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu > prometteurs. > La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. > Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : > sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. > > Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa > famille > (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). > Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un > certain temps. > Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins > intensifs, > alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; > .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... > Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était > en cours d'examen; > il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa > détermination de vaincre > et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. > > Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de > la sécurité de l'UIT, , > qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, > m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution > et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT > Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur > gentillesse, et > surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. > > J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa > mémoire à court terme, > et tout semble être en très bonne voie. > > Francis depuis Genève. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis > F. MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http:// > syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de > Drize 1227 Carouge KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/ > groupe_recherche http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI > Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http:// > www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the > Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific > Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : > http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// > www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis- > gov.org web ------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Gov mailing list > Gov at wsis-gov.org > http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun May 24 12:42:31 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:42:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, Thanks for an interesting perspective. Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it would benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within Internet governance that would make a real difference to people in Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social development, and how can they be used? the current questions attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at all. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 7:45 AM -0700 5/23/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Coming in late to the discussion and being sympathetic to McTim and George's >point I'm wondering whether the issue is that the IGF doesn't really include >discussions on issues of much interest to the Developing World and countries >in transition (and grassroots users who are the "stakeholders" that interest >me) so those folks shouldn't waste their time and money on looking to >participate; or alternatively that the way in which the issues of "Internet >governance" are being defined are rather too narrow or involve certain >assumptions about what is given, what is necessary/possible, what should be >included under "Internet Governance" etc. which inevitably excludes these >groups (and their concerns) and all but a rather narrow band of fairly elite >users/Internet Governance mavens. > >So maybe its not that folks from Africa or the 'stans (or grassroots users) >shouldn't participate but rather that the IGF should open itself up to a >broader understanding of what Internet governance issues might include and >while doing that provide a more engaging and inclusive enviroment for what >would probably be a rather broader and much more diverse range of >stakeholders/participants/topic areas for discussion... > >MBG > >-----Original Message----- >From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:37 PM >To: George Sadowsky >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE >Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review > > >Hi George, > >Thank you for your eloquence, and of course >AfREN is an Af* organisation that was present in Cairo. > >Best Regards, > >McTim > >On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, George Sadowsky > wrote: >> All, >> >> In sympathy with McTim's comments below, I feel compelled to add a >> similar experience. It illustrates where the need for action is, and >> my conclusion are similar to McTim's. >> >> Two weeks ago I was co-directing a NATO seminar in Dushanbe, >> Tajikistan. >> The participants were scientists and government officials from what I >call >> the lesser -stans: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Ubekistan, Tajikistan, and >> Turkmenistan. In addition, several people were there from Afghanistan, >> making a 12-hour drive from kabul. >> >> Most of these countries are not rich, and all are Internet-poor. >> >> In each of these countries (except Afghanistan), there is a national >> education and research network, which is key to Internet development >> in each country. When the scientists were queried regarding what they > > needed, the clear and universal response was "access, access, and more >> access," access to bandwidth, to information from other countries, and >> to collaboration through Internet with their counterparts in the west. >> The needs of the inhabitants who have access to Internet in these >> countries are similar. >> >> Very few of them would benefit in the short run from what is happening > > at IGF. It is true that the majority of these countries have regimes >> that many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is true that >> liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework in these >> countries would help Internet users there. However, few if any of the >> debates existing in the IGF environment, with the possible exception >> of a few access issues, will help them. The efforts and resources >> that might go to attendance at and work with the IGF might better be >> spent at home. >> >> As in Africa, there are ISP and network associations in almost all of >> these Central Asian countries that are getting both local and >> international support. These are levers that count, not the results >> of the IGF debates. >> So I strongly endorse McTim's advice to the African community: get >involved >> in your existing Internet organizations and use them as the instruments to >> improve local and national governance arrangements in your countries. If >> you want to get involved in IGF also, ok, but do so with a clear >> understanding of that you think you can get out of it that will really >help >> your country. >> >> Regards, >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~~~ >> >> At 9:09 PM +0300 5/22/09, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Ginger and Ian, >>>> Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till >>>> necessary >>>> for a most of developping countries specially in africa. >>> >>> This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. >>> >>> There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. >>> >>> When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead >>> of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less >>> time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) >>> African IG experience. That to me is a real pity. >>> >>> Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) >>> instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) >>> is beyond me. >>> >>> I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved >>> in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings. We need all the support we >>> can get. There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa >>> than in some other regions, I don't understand why we don't support >>> our own initiatives when we easily can! >>> >>> >>> I am agree Ginger >>>> >>>> position in following sentences :"The process of consultations >>>> should >>>> especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation >in >>>> IG >>>> issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries >>>> including >>>> those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower >participation >>>> in >>>> IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should >>>> also be >>>> specifically approached." >>> >>> NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10 >>> this week. Several disabled folk as well. >>> >>>> Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who >>>> were and >>>> remain active in the process of IG in developing countries, more >>>> particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many >>>> efforts is >>>> done in ICT applications but about 70% of the marginalized or >>>> disadvantaged >>>> population still do not have access to digital technology >>> >>> and the IGF is going to fix this how? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 24 13:05:20 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 19:05:20 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack References: <4A188298.5080104@unige.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719041@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jean Louis, please stay with us. And Francis thanks for your courageous actions. Wolfgang > > Début du message réexpédié : > > > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" > > Date : 24 mai 2009 01:11:20 HAEC > > À : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" > > > > Objet : [Gov 668] News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack > > Répondre à : WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance > > > > > > Please post to other lists, since for technical reasons, I cannot use > > some email addresses under which I am registered to those other lists. > > > > > > English / Français > > > > This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, > > because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in > > medical matters. > > > > Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society > > activist since the beginning > > of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the > > end of the WSIS Forum > > ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing > > ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) > > on Monday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me > > about his > > intervention on financing mechanisms. > > He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt > > down over a table, > > With people around him, we laid him on the ground. > > I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis > > "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. > > > > Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav > > Ponder (ITU) > > did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU > > security personnel came > > and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) > > and he became awake again, uttering some words. > > UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move > > chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. > > It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... > > When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had > > to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was > > successful ! > > > > Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the > > operation, > > and to help in all manners he could. > > > > Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I > > accompanied > > him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms > > on... > > He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. > > > > To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile > > phone was dead > > ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am > > still in Geneva now ), > > ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone > > > > At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. > > The concern was about his short term memory. > > The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : > > without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. > > > > Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives > > ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). > > This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. > > Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was > > waiting for them at > > the emergencies.. but finally we met... > > Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under > > examination; > > he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his > > determination to win > > and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve > > > > Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the > > ITU security, > > who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, > > calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution > > and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. > > I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and > > most of all > > the security agent who saved his life. > > > > I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is > > recovering, > > all seems to be progressing very well. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > > > > Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent > > ne pas être exacts, > > en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de > > connaissances dans le domaine médical. > > > > Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la > > société civile depuis le début > > du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du > > Forum du SMSI > > (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de > > clôture 12:30 13:00) > > le lundi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train > > de discuter avec moi à propos de son > > intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. > > Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et > > silencieusement il s'est affaissé sur une table, > > Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre > > Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis > > "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. > > > > En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav > > Ponder (ITU) > > fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une > > personne de la sécurité de l'UIT > > est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque > > et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. > > Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont > > commencé à déplacer > > des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. > > Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... > > Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les > > sauveteurs ont du > > le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un > > succès! > > > > Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour > > assister à l'opération, > > et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . > > > > Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai > > accompagné > > avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes > > sirènes hurlantes ... > > Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de > > soins intensifs. > > > > Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon > > téléphone portable était inutilisable. > > (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, > > en France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), > > La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un > > téléphone mobile de l'UIT. > > > > Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu > > prometteurs. > > La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. > > Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : > > sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. > > > > Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa > > famille > > (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). > > Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un > > certain temps. > > Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins > > intensifs, > > alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; > > .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... > > Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était > > en cours d'examen; > > il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa > > détermination de vaincre > > et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. > > > > Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de > > la sécurité de l'UIT, , > > qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, > > m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution > > et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT > > Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur > > gentillesse, et > > surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. > > > > J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa > > mémoire à court terme, > > et tout semble être en très bonne voie. > > > > Francis depuis Genève. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis > > F. MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http:// > > syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de > > Drize 1227 Carouge KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/ > > groupe_recherche http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI > > Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http:// > > www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the > > Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific > > Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : > > http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http:// > > www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis- > > gov.org web ------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Gov mailing list > > Gov at wsis-gov.org > > http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 13:45:14 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:45:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> George The problem is that rights and freedoms ARE development issues. It is no accident that the countries with the most liberal telecom policies (going back to 1890) have the most developed infrastructures and that the countries with the most liberal content regulation policies are the ones with the strongest content industries. Internet facilitates economic and social development precisely because it enables decentralized, bottom-up initiative. True, this won't magically create oodles of investment capital that will suddenly allow, say, the South Sudan to instantly attain the infrastructures and income levels of Denmark. But in that regard, there are a lot of socio-economic development issues that have almost nothing to do with Internet, such as whether one has stable, legitimate institutions, peace, etc. > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim' > Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > Michael, > > Thanks for an interesting perspective. > > Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet > governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of > the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or > power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it would > benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. > > However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the > MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. > Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I > think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within Internet > governance that would make a real difference to people in > Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social > development, and how can they be used? the current questions > attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at > all. > > Regards, > > George > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun May 24 13:58:46 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:58:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, I don't disagree with what you say, and I don't question the contribution of topics like rights and freedoms to development. In the shorter run, however, I believe that if you focus on maximizing the Internet's contribution to development in a country, you accomplish more by looking at what changes in governance within the country can do for development than by addressing the larger issues of rights and freedoms in an international context. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 1:45 PM -0400 5/24/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: >George >The problem is that rights and freedoms ARE development issues. It >is no accident that the countries with the most liberal telecom >policies (going back to 1890) have the most developed >infrastructures and that the countries with the most liberal content >regulation policies are the ones with the strongest content >industries. > >Internet facilitates economic and social development precisely >because it enables decentralized, bottom-up initiative. True, this >won't magically create oodles of investment capital that will >suddenly allow, say, the South Sudan to instantly attain the >infrastructures and income levels of Denmark. But in that regard, >there are a lot of socio-economic development issues that have >almost nothing to do with Internet, such as whether one has stable, >legitimate institutions, peace, etc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:43 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim' >> Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE' >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review >> >> Michael, >> >> Thanks for an interesting perspective. >> >> Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet >> governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of >> the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or >> power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it would >> benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. >> >> However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the >> MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. >> Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I >> think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within Internet >> governance that would make a real difference to people in >> Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social >> development, and how can they be used? the current questions >> attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at >> all. >> >> Regards, >> >> George >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 11:11:32 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:11:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> My comments below ________________________________ 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's existing processes and structures? IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN MM: It has been suggested that "private" be replaced by "multistakeholder." In the context of early ICANN, "private" back then meant "nongovernmental," but now it is often interpreted by certain groups as "business" or "commercial sector-led." 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and security of the Internet DNS? IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION MM: These comments don't really address the rather radical question posed: is the model the right one? What are possible alternatives? If it is the right one, is ICANN ready to execute it without US oversight? However you answer this, we must make it clear that ICANN is a governance or economic-regulatory body, not a business or an industry association, and appropriate standards should apply. 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be taken to successfully address them? 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA. Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories: security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served in these areas? ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes can be ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or manipulated by its policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is inadequate. Its relationship to international law ambiguous. The rights of people to challenge its actions on the basis of established law unclear. 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served in these areas? Most of the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby. 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used to make that determination? IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. MM: I am beginning to question this. 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in place? THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the agreement. What should be included in this report? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 24 14:05:18 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:05:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no indirect) connection between the "most developed infrastructure" or "the strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly among the poorest and the least developed populations... There are in many cases statistical associations because infrastructure and content industries support economic and social advance among the alteady developed sections of those societies, but the reality is very different on the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in India where highly sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had little or no impact on the bulk of the rural population. I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example in South Africa where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or of content is likely in fact to be an impediment to development by restricting the opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support development among the 85% of the population which is currently not effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced infrastructure and content industries in that country. Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any better is not something I want to argue in this context, but at least as I see the SA situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more competition) will lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and have virtually no effect on the not connected. How cell technology (the ICT of choice in most LDC's) interacts with all this is another question very worthy of a second thread but is an issue area which to my knowledge hasn't been addressed at all in the context of the IGF. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review George The problem is that rights and freedoms ARE development issues. It is no accident that the countries with the most liberal telecom policies (going back to 1890) have the most developed infrastructures and that the countries with the most liberal content regulation policies are the ones with the strongest content industries. Internet facilitates economic and social development precisely because it enables decentralized, bottom-up initiative. True, this won't magically create oodles of investment capital that will suddenly allow, say, the South Sudan to instantly attain the infrastructures and income levels of Denmark. But in that regard, there are a lot of socio-economic development issues that have almost nothing to do with Internet, such as whether one has stable, legitimate institutions, peace, etc. > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim' > Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > Michael, > > Thanks for an interesting perspective. > > Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet > governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of > the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or > power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it would > benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. > > However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the > MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. > Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I > think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within Internet > governance that would make a real difference to people in > Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social > development, and how can they be used? the current questions > attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at > all. > > Regards, > > George > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 24 14:23:25 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:23:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review Message-ID: <1E989BF07AB24E9696722E69FD5CD25A@userPC> Before I'm jumped on here, I'm well aware of the Christensen reposte to the Solow paradox (organizations not showing any productivity gains from massive investment in IT for almost a decade)... So far as I'm aware, neither the original productivity studies nor the studies supporting Christensen's reposte have been done with any degree of sophistication in the "Development" sphere. From my own observations on the ground, many of the linkages that necessarily exist between IT and system change in organizations (the careful itemization of which provided the basis for Christensen's reposte/analysis) are available or are even being effectively developed in most LDC's (training programs, reinvention of supply chains, flattening of decision making structures etc.etc. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:05 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review Milton, There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no indirect) connection between the "most developed infrastructure" or "the strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly among the poorest and the least developed populations... There are in many cases statistical associations because infrastructure and content industries support economic and social advance among the alteady developed sections of those societies, but the reality is very different on the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in India where highly sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had little or no impact on the bulk of the rural population. I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example in South Africa where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or of content is likely in fact to be an impediment to development by restricting the opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support development among the 85% of the population which is currently not effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced infrastructure and content industries in that country. Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any better is not something I want to argue in this context, but at least as I see the SA situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more competition) will lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and have virtually no effect on the not connected. How cell technology (the ICT of choice in most LDC's) interacts with all this is another question very worthy of a second thread but is an issue area which to my knowledge hasn't been addressed at all in the context of the IGF. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review George The problem is that rights and freedoms ARE development issues. It is no accident that the countries with the most liberal telecom policies (going back to 1890) have the most developed infrastructures and that the countries with the most liberal content regulation policies are the ones with the strongest content industries. Internet facilitates economic and social development precisely because it enables decentralized, bottom-up initiative. True, this won't magically create oodles of investment capital that will suddenly allow, say, the South Sudan to instantly attain the infrastructures and income levels of Denmark. But in that regard, there are a lot of socio-economic development issues that have almost nothing to do with Internet, such as whether one has stable, legitimate institutions, peace, etc. > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim' > Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > Michael, > > Thanks for an interesting perspective. > > Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet > governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of > the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or > power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it would > benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. > > However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the > MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. > Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I > think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within Internet > governance that would make a real difference to people in > Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social > development, and how can they be used? the current questions > attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at > all. > > Regards, > > George > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 16:00:04 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:00:04 +1000 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a full and speedy recovery Message-ID: Dear Jean Louis, We know we are speaking for all our colleagues on the Internet Governance Caucus in wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to having you on board again when circumstances permit. All the best from all of us, Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators ­ for the Internet Governance Caucus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 24 16:09:39 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 23:09:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Milton, > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no > indirect) connection between the "most developed infrastructure" or "the > strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly among the poorest > and the least developed populations... > > There are in many cases statistical associations because infrastructure and > content industries support economic and social advance among the alteady > developed sections of those societies, but the reality is very different on > the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in India where highly > sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had little or no > impact on the bulk of the rural population. > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example in South Africa > where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or of content is > likely in fact to be an impediment to development by restricting the > opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced infrastructure and > content industries in that country. > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any better is not > something I want to argue in this context, but at least as I see the SA > situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more competition) will > lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and have virtually no > effect on the not connected. hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk worldwide) might prove you wrong. http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-architecture/ and an early implementation of it: http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! My original point in this thread was that African CS can actually DO something instead of just talking about doing something (at the IGF). -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun May 24 18:30:08 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 19:30:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a full and speedy recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A19CA70.5010300@rits.org.br> Ditto! fraternal regards --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Dear Jean Louis, > > We know we are speaking for all our colleagues on the Internet Governance > Caucus in wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to having > you on board again when circumstances permit. > > All the best from all of us, > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators ­ for the Internet Governance > Caucus > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon May 25 02:04:39 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:04:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Milton a few points below On 25/05/09 1:11 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > My comments below > > > >> 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., >> stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and >> representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector >> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If >> so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's >> existing processes and structures? >> >> IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM >> PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN >> >> MM: It has been suggested that ³private² be replaced by ³multistakeholder.² >> In the context of early ICANN, ³private² back then meant ³nongovernmental,² >> but now it is often interpreted by certain groups as ³business² or >> ³commercial sector-led.² >> >> IP: Agreed, lets include that change >> >> 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination >> of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. >> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector >> so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is >> this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and >> facilitate international participation in the coordination and >> management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the >> security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and >> structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry >> leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most >> appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and >> security of the Internet DNS? >> >> IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY >> INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE >> ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS >> WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR >> PARTICIPATION >> >> MM: These comments don¹t really address the rather radical question posed: is >> the model the right one? What are possible alternatives? If it is the right >> one, is ICANN ready to execute it without US oversight? However you answer >> this, we must make it clear that ICANN is a governance or economic-regulatory >> body, not a business or an industry association, and appropriate standards >> should apply. >> >> IP: which point I think is made in the answer to 1 above ­ bottom up >> co-ordination, multistakeholder etc. But we can clarify here as well. I don¹t >> think we need to examine alternative models in this particular response ­ the >> real question here is should JPA continue or not. And indeed your comments >> below come to the heart of this. ICANN is imperfect ­ but a decade of JPAs >> haven't solved that nor will another decade of JPAs. >> >> 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA >> contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific >> milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these >> milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be >> taken to successfully address them? >> >> >> 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a >> series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the >> JPA. >> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities >> set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN >> Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those >> responsibilities included activities in the following categories: >> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server >> security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, >> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and >> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet >> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If >> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served >> in these areas? >> MM: ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes can be >> ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or manipulated by its >> policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is inadequate. Its relationship >> to international law ambiguous. The rights of people to challenge its actions >> on the basis of established law unclear. >> >> IP: Do we really want to include text to this effect? >> >> 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. >> That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to >> increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, >> accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, >> stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced >> competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns >> expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been >> successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the >> community served in these areas? >> >> Most of the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby. >> >> 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an >> agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the >> technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner >> that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. >> Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place >> by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria >> should be used to make that determination? >> >> IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS >> TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. >> MM: I am beginning to question this. >> >> IP: But a decade of JPAs havent solved that nor will another decade of JPAs. >> Milton, have you suggested text here? As there will be no consensus here to >> continue the JPA, can we agree the JPA should cease? Or is there a specific >> measure we want to propose that expresses concerns in a way that makes it >> clear the JPA should not continue? Or should we remain silent? This is the >> real crux of this process... >> >> >> >> 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient >> safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of >> the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder >> interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are >> these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of >> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what >> additional safeguards should be put in place? >> >> THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO >> BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO >> EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. >> >> 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are >> to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's >> policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the >> agreement. What should be included in this report? >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon May 25 02:24:46 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:24:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: JPA In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 5/25/09, Ian Peter wrote: > > Thanks Milton a few points below > MM: ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes can > be ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or manipulated by > its policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is inadequate. Its > relationship to international law ambiguous. The rights of people to > challenge its actions on the basis of established law unclear. > > IP: Do we really want to include text to this effect? > > I would think not. 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. > That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to > increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, > accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, > stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced > competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns > expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been > successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the > community served in these areas? > > Most of the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby. > > 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an > agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the > technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner > that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. > Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place > by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria > should be used to make that determination? > > IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS > TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. > MM: I am beginning to question this. > > IP: But a decade of JPAs havent solved that nor will another decade of > JPAs. Milton, have you suggested text here? As there will be no consensus > here to continue the JPA, can we agree the JPA should cease? > > Yes. Or is there a specific measure we want to propose that expresses concerns in > a way that makes it clear the JPA should not continue? Or should we remain > silent? This is the real crux of this process... > > It seems that many are on this list for this very issue, so I for one would be disappointed if we didn't make a statement of some sort either yea or nay. I say yea, let the JPA expire and ICANN stand on it's own. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 25 03:51:00 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:51:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC7F8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi On May 24, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE > ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO- > OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A > SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL > THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION > > MM: These comments don’t really address the rather radical question > posed: is the model the right one? What are possible alternatives? > If it is the right one, is ICANN ready to execute it without US > oversight? However you answer this, we must make it clear that ICANN > is a governance or economic-regulatory body, not a business or an > industry association, and appropriate standards should apply. Further to Milton's point, ICANN's existential status is an issue that might merit discussion if IGC files a comment. It seems that despite all the international political debates of the past six years, a substantial percentage of the key individuals and orgs still see ICANN as essentially a business designed to create and capture profit making opportunities, rather than as a international institution with wider socio-political roles and responsibilities. This was captured nicely in an exchange during the Joint AC/SO meeting Mexico City. When panelists were asked by the moderator to describe how they see policy development processes, a leading member of the business constituency and of the GNSO Council replied that policy was about making better contracts, full stop, a view that was echoed by others. In response, Bertrand suggested that policy was about advancing the global public interest, to which some others replied that they didn't know what the term could really mean. And this orientation is arguably reflected in a lot of other data points, e.g. the criteria being used to recruit a new CEO, the reactions to GAC proposals from various groupings, the design of various current policy initiatives, etc. Others may disagree, but to me there seems to be a pretty deep and problematic disconnect between the internal culture and priorities and the external environment. > > ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes > can be ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or > manipulated by its policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is > inadequate. Its relationship to international law ambiguous. The > rights of people to challenge its actions on the basis of > established law unclear. Yup > > > IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS > FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. > MM: I am beginning to question this. > As am I. Assuming that the present internal trajectory would continue unabated and that there will not be any prior agreement on some sort of new ms/global model of external review and accountability, one does wonder about the potential unintended consequences of setting it loose in the wild. We could end up with increasing capture and policy narrowness coupled with increasing agitation elsewhere for (inter)governmental responses. At a minimum, one would hope to see a more systematic elaboration of the potential costs/benefits of the alternatives than has been advanced so far. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 25 04:17:15 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:17:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C1CA84B-E8C6-436B-BC57-671B4D044AE3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi George On May 24, 2009, at 6:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Michael, > > Thanks for an interesting perspective. > > Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at > Internet governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to > some of the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental > rights or power. I think this would be a major step forward, and it > would benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor. The "as opposed to" is yours, not mine. I don't see any contradiction between saying that developmental implications should be built in as a criteria of evaluation and arguing for rights and principles. More generally, considering these implications is not an alternative to looking carefully at how global IG institutions work, procedurally and substantively; in fact, that's precisely what I'm for doing, from a developmental perspective. Local access conditions vs international institutions is a false dichotomy, we should be concerned with both and recognize the interrelationships. > > > However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the > MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. > Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I > think is a fundamental question: What are the levers within > Internet governance that would make a real difference to people in > Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social > development, and how can they be used? the current questions > attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if > at all. I don't see the sidetracking going on, which raises a broader question. You've been saying since WSIS that international meetings/ processes are a distraction and misallocation of resources (ISOC used to say the same, back when it was denying that IG even exists), and we've gone back and forth on the point a number of times on the list in over the years without (at least in my view) coming to a clear understanding of the purported problem. So in search of clarity, allow me to re-spin one of your questions back to you. You say there's no evidence that IGF discussions have done anything to make conditions better on the ground in developing and transitional countries. So is there concrete evidence that because some people from these countries spend four days once a year at a meeting, progress on the ground has stalled or conditions actually have been made worse? Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon May 25 05:11:01 2009 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:11:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a full and speedy recovery In-Reply-To: <4A19CA70.5010300@rits.org.br> References: <4A19CA70.5010300@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20090525091123.484A13AC228@mail.gn.apc.org> dear francis and jean louis thanks francis for letting us know, and being there.. jean louis, I hope you regain good health soon.. karen At 23:30 24/05/2009, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Ditto! > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > >Ian Peter wrote: > > Dear Jean Louis, > > > > We know we are speaking for all our colleagues on the Internet Governance > > Caucus in wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to having > > you on board again when circumstances permit. > > > > All the best from all of us, > > > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators ­ for the Internet Governance > > Caucus > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 25 05:49:29 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 11:49:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a full and speedy recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47606EA1-0E16-4BC3-B93E-193E0A0D7199@graduateinstitute.ch> Jean Louis, We were all shocked and concerned by Francis' report and look forward to properly celebrating your full recovering at EuroDig 09... Bill On May 24, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Dear Jean Louis, > > We know we are speaking for all our colleagues on the Internet > Governance Caucus in wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We look > forward to having you on board again when circumstances permit. > > All the best from all of us, > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators – for the Internet > Governance Caucus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 25 06:11:04 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:11:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update / News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack] Message-ID: <4A1A6EB8.9040302@mdpi.net> / Many thanks to Meryem for forwarding the first message to the list. Many thanks to those who expressed their support. Dear Friends Just got Jean-Louis on the phone at the Hospital. He is fine. All his good spirit is back. He is going to undergo an operation ( peacemaker ) within an hour. -------------------------------- Cher amis Je viens d'avoir Jean-Louis au téléphone à l'Hopital; Il a complètement récupéré, et son ton est aussi vif que d'habitude. Il va subir la pose d'un peacemaker dans une heure. Il devrait rester à l'Hopital encore deux ou trois jours. Amicalement Francis / -------------------------------------------------- English / Français This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in medical matters. Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society activist since the beginning of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the end of the WSIS Forum ( *WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting *( 09:00-12:30) + closing ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) on Friday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me about his intervention on financing mechanisms. He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt down over a table, With people around him, we laid him on the ground. I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav Ponder (ITU) did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU security personnel came and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (/CPR/) and he became awake again, uttering some words. UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was successful ! Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the operation, and to help in all manners he could. Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I accompanied him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms on... He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. To add to the stress of the situation, my /Sim/ card of my mobile phone was dead ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am still in Geneva now ), ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. The concern was about his short term memory. The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was waiting for them at the emergencies.. but finally we met... Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under examination; he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his determination to win and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the ITU security, who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and most of all the security agent who saved his life. I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is recovering, all seems to be progressing very well. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent ne pas être exacts, en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de connaissances dans le domaine médical. Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la société civile depuis le début du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du Forum du SMSI (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de clôture 12:30 13:00) le Vendredi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train de discuter avec moi à propos de son intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et silencieusement il s'est affaissé sur une table, Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav Ponder (ITU) fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une personne de la sécurité de l'UIT est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont commencé à déplacer des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les sauveteurs ont du le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un succès! Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour assister à l'opération, et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai accompagné avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes sirènes hurlantes ... Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de soins intensifs. Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon téléphone portable était inutilisable. (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, en France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un téléphone mobile de l'UIT. Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu prometteurs. La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la mort. Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa famille (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un certain temps. Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins intensifs, alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était en cours d'examen; il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa détermination de vaincre et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de la sécurité de l'UIT, , qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur gentillesse, et surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa mémoire à court terme, et tout semble être en très bonne voie. Francis depuis Genève. ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D Département des Systèmes d'Information http://syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de Drize 1227 Carouge KNIS/UNIGE http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/groupe_recherche http://knis.org NET4D : http://www.net4D.org MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web ------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Département des Systèmes d'Information http://syinf.unige.ch Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch CUI, Bâtiment A 7 route de Drize 1227 Carouge World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Mon May 25 06:27:57 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:27:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update / News / Nouvelles Jean-Louis Fullsack] In-Reply-To: <4A1A6EB8.9040302@mdpi.net> References: <4A1A6EB8.9040302@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <1243247277.3900.314.camel@anriette-laptop> This is very good news, Francis. Jean Louis is a very special person in WSIS and post-WSIS spaces. His voice has been an insistent and critical one that always puts the interests of the many people who don't have access to the internet first. I personally appreciate his passion and commitment, and that fact that he is willing to argue (including with me) when he feels it is needed. Please pass our warm get well wishes to him. Tell him we need him and that want him back soon. Anriette On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 12:11 +0200, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > > Many thanks to Meryem for forwarding the first message to the list. > Many thanks to those who expressed their support. > > Dear Friends > > Just got Jean-Louis on the phone at the Hospital. > He is fine. All his good spirit is back. > He is going to undergo an operation > ( peacemaker ) within an hour. > > -------------------------------- > > Cher amis > > Je viens d'avoir Jean-Louis au téléphone à l'Hopital; > Il a complètement récupéré, et son ton est aussi vif > que d'habitude. > Il va subir la pose d'un peacemaker dans une heure. > Il devrait rester à l'Hopital encore deux ou trois jours. > > Amicalement > > Francis > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > English / Français > > This account is my personnal recollection that may not be accurate, > because of my anxiety and stress, and my lack of knowledge in medical > matters. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, a good friend and a well known Civil Society > activist since the beginning > of the WSIS in 2002, has been affected by an heart attack at the end > of the WSIS Forum > ( WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting( 09:00-12:30) + closing > ceremony 12:30 13:00 ) > on Friday 22 May around 13:05, just while he was discussing with me > about his > intervention on financing mechanisms. > He was standing up, suddenly he stopped talking, and silently felt > down over a table, > With people around him, we laid him on the ground. > I remember Pierre-Alexandre Genillon shouting at Jean-Louis > "Do not leave us, answer", trying to keep his attention. > > Meanwhile I was shouting to call for an ambulance, which Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > did immediately, fortunately 2 or 3 minutes later an ITU security > personnel came > and performed a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) > and he became awake again, uttering some words. > UNESCO staff ( Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli ) began to move > chairs to clear the passage for the ambulance. > It seems an eternity before the ambulance arrived.... > When it did, the heart had stopped again, and the rescuers had > to start it again with electric shocks, operation that was > successful ! > > Dr. Hamadoun Touré came in the room, in person, to witness the > operation, > and to help in all manners he could. > > Jean-Louis was took to the Hopital Cantonal de Genève, where I > accompanied > him in the ambulance, which was running at full speed, all alarms > on... > He was immediately taken to the Emergency and Intensive Care Unit. > > To add to the stress of the situation, my Sim card of my mobile phone > was dead > ( just got replaced today, I had to go to Ferney in France , I am > still in Geneva now ), > ITU security was really helpfull to loan me an ITU mobile phone > > At first, the reports were prudent and unpromising. > The concern was about his short term memory. > The doctor confirmed me what the rescuers told me : > without the CPR performed on site, he would have died. > > Meanwhile, I was browsing in his directory to try find his relatives > ( her daugther that was lodging him in the vicinity ). > This search of which I will pass the details took me some time. > Her daugher and relatives arrived directly to the ICU, while I was > waiting for them at > the emergencies.. but finally we met... > Before leaving the hospital I saw Jean-Louis, while he was under > examination; > he recognized me, and put his thumbs up in sign of his determination > to win > and to live. I felt overwhelmed with reprieve > > Then I went back to ITU, I gave back the phone to the head of the ITU > security, > who has been taking exceptional care of the situation, > calling me regurlaly at the Hospital to know the evolution > and was reporting to the situation to the ITU SG. > I deeply thank ITU staff for their efficiency and kindness, and most > of all > the security agent who saved his life. > > I got further news tonight. Jean Louis short term memory is > recovering, > all seems to be progressing very well. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Ce compte-rendu correspond à mes souvenirs personnels qui peuvent ne > pas être exacts, > en raison de mon anxiété et stress, et mon manque de connaissances > dans le domaine médical. > > Jean Louis Fullsack, un bon ami et un militant bien connu de la > société civile depuis le début > du SMSI, en 2002, a été touché par une crise cardiaque à la fin du > Forum du SMSI > (WSIS Action Line Facilitators Réunion (09:00-12:30) + cérémonie de > clôture 12:30 13:00) > le Vendredi 22 Mai autour de 13h05, alors qu'il était juste en train > de discuter avec moi à propos de son > intervention sur les mécanismes de financement. > Il était debout, tout à coup, il a cessé de parler, et silencieusement > il s'est affaissé sur une table, > Avec les gens autour de lui, nous l'avons mis par terre > Je me souviens de Pierre-Alexandre Genillon criant à Jean-Louis > "Ne nous laisse pas, réponds", en essayant de garder son attention. > > En attendant, je criais pour appeler une ambulance, ce quz Jaroslav > Ponder (ITU) > fit immédiatement, heureusement, 2 ou 3 minutes plus tard, une > personne de la sécurité de l'UIT > est arrivé et a effectué un massage cardiaque > et il s'est réveillé à nouveau, prononçant quelques mots. > Le personnel de l'UNESCO (Miriam Nissbet, Andrea Becalli) ont commencé > à déplacer > des chaises pour faire place au passage de l'ambulance. > Il a semblé une éternité avant que l'ambulance n'arrive .... > Quand elle est arrivée, le coeur s'était arrêté de nouveau, et les > sauveteurs ont du > le faire repartir avec des chocs électriques, opération qui a été un > succès! > > Dr Hamadoun Touré est venu dans la pièce, en personne, pour assister à > l'opération, > et pour aider de toutes les manières possibles . > > Jean Louis a été ammené à l'Hôpital cantonal de Genève, où j'ai > accompagné > avec lui dans l'ambulance, qui roulait à fond la caisse, toutes > sirènes hurlantes ... > Il a été immédiatement emmené aux urgences et ensuite à l'unité de > soins intensifs. > > Pour ajouter au stress de la situation, ma carte SIM de mon téléphone > portable était inutilisable. > (elle vient d'être remplacée, aujourd'hui, j'ai du aller à Ferney, en > France, je suis encore aujourd'hui à Genève), > La sécurité de l'UIT a été vraiment effiicace en me prétant un > téléphone mobile de l'UIT. > > Dans un premier temps, les rapports ont été prudents et peu > prometteurs. > La préoccupation &trait au sujet de son mémoire à court terme. > Le médecin m'a confirmé ce que les sauveteurs m'avait dit : > sans le massage cardiaque effectué sur site, il aurait trouvé la > mort. > > Pendant ce temps, j'ai parcouru son répertoire pour contacter sa > famille > (Sa fille l'héberge dans les environs). > Cette recherche, dont je passerai sur les détails, m'a pris un > certain temps. > Sa fille et sa famille sont arrivés directement à l'unité de soins > intensifs, > alors que j'étais en train de les attendre aux urgences; > .. mais finalement nous nous sommes rencontrés ... > Avant de quitter l'hôpital, j'ai vu Jean-Louis, alors qu'il était en > cours d'examen; > il m'a reconnu, et il a mis les pouces en l'air en signe de sa > détermination de vaincre > et de vivre. Je me suis senti submergé de soulagement ,. > > Puis je suis retourné à l'UIT, j'ai rendu le téléphone au chef de la > sécurité de l'UIT, , > qui a pris un soin exceptionnel de la situation, > m'appelant regulièrement à l'Hôpital afin de connaître l'évolution > et faire rapport de la situation au SG de l'UIT > Je le remercie le staff de l'UIT pour leur efficacité et leur > gentillesse, et > surtout l'agent de sécurité qui lui a sauvé la vie. > > J'ai eu d'autres nouvelles ce soir; Jean Louis a récupéré sa mémoire > à court terme, > et tout semble être en très bonne voie. > > Francis depuis Genève. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D > Département des Systèmes d'Information > http://syinf.unige.ch > Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch > CUI, Bâtiment A > 7 route de Drize > 1227 Carouge > > KNIS/UNIGE > http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/groupe_recherche > http://knis.org > NET4D : http://www.net4D.org > > MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals > http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net > muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > > World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) > Civil Society Working Groups > Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair > Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair > Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web > Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D > > MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals > http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net > muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > > Département des Systèmes d'Information > http://syinf.unige.ch > Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales > Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch > CUI, Bâtiment A > 7 route de Drize > 1227 Carouge > > World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) > Civil Society Working Groups > Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair > Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair > Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web > Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web > > NET4D : http://www.net4D.org > UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org > WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Mon May 25 06:39:53 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:39:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1A7579.3000107@apc.org> Hi Ian In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA expiry on the following lines: Q1: change the principle 'private' to 'multi-stakeholder' and propose WSIS principles Q2 say the ICANN model is flawed as it allows for arbitrary interventions by the GAC to override its decision-making processess as in the .xxx case, does not in its decision-making processes comply with the standards of an economic regulator, confuses public policy regulation with commercial activities, lacks proper accountability whether internal or external, lacks full international legitimacy. ICANN can be internationalised as an economic regulator for the DNS and the JPA allowed to expire after the following steps: - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical internet resources through an international treaty - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS principles etc) - an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic regulator but not interfere in its operations) Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has made progress on meeting some of these steps but they are not sufficient in themselves as the overall problems outlined in Q2 have not been met and can't be met within the current governance arrangments for ICANN. Q6: say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until theconditions outlined under Q2 have been met. This conclusion is somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have argued against the unilateral control of ICANN by one government. We have also been hesitant about arguing for an international treaty but feel the sooner we face up to this as a reality the better. We are worried about a black swan blindsiding the system of managing critical internet resources to the detriment of the internet as a whole and lack confidence in letting ICANN go without there being a legitimate accountability mechanism in place. Willie Ian Peter wrote: > > > There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the > JPA -- which I think would be a good idea. Below is DOC's call for > comments with some suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until > June 8 so we probably need to get something decided fairly quickly > if we are to respond. > > Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is > that ICANN needs to embed various principles in its operation. > These are in by-laws but that would appear to be easy to change. > Those closer to ICANN might be able to suggest an appropriate > mechanism for this. > > > Ian Peter > > > REQUEST FOR COMMENT: > > Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the > Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the > progress of the transition of the technical coordination and > management > of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of > private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which > ICANN > represents. > The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the > issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments > that may > be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, > and > other empirical data that are not widely published should include > copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. > 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., > stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and > representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private > sector > management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If > so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into > ICANN's > existing processes and structures? > > IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO > SEE THEM PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT > ICANN > > 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the > coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the > U.S. > Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector > so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is > this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and > facilitate international participation in the coordination and > management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the > security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and > structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry > leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most > appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the > stability and > security of the Internet DNS? > > IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE > ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT > CO-OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A > SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL > THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION > > 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA > contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific > milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these > milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be > taken to successfully address them? > > > 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a > series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an > annex to the JPA. > Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities > set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN > Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those > responsibilities included activities in the following categories: > security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server > security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, > role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and > corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to > meet > each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If > not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community > served > in these areas? > > 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. > That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to > increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, > accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, > stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and > enhanced > competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns > expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been > successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the > community served in these areas? > > 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an > agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the > technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner > that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet > DNS. > Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take > place > by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria > should be used to make that determination? > > IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS > FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. > > 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient > safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of > the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder > interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are > they? Are > these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of > stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what > additional safeguards should be put in place? > > THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. > THEY NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT > EASILY BE CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. > > 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are > to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's > policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the > agreement. What should be included in this report? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 25 06:41:20 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:41:20 +0700 Subject: [governance] Wishing you a full and speedy recovery In-Reply-To: <47606EA1-0E16-4BC3-B93E-193E0A0D7199@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <47606EA1-0E16-4BC3-B93E-193E0A0D7199@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70905250341j5d832880w3dc7f31743860400@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, As I was there during this devastating situation where Jean and many others fought for life, I wish Jean his quick recovery and I cannot explain my feelings from that moment including the CPR from the ITU security guard and then the shock given by the emergency team. There was just not one moment of relief, it felt that we lost Jean over 4 times, including three times when the CPR was under way and Jean's plunges to silence and then breathing and then silence. When he was loaded on to the stretcher, he was looking around and that was a moment of relief! The quick response to the situation and the aid from the security guard was a key contribution to saving Jean's life. May God give him quick recovery and also congratulations to everyone for saving a life, he who saves a life, saves humanity! On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > Jean Louis, > We were all shocked and concerned by Francis' report and look forward to > properly celebrating your full recovering  at EuroDig 09... > Bill > > On May 24, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Dear Jean Louis, > > We know we are speaking for all our colleagues on the Internet Governance > Caucus in wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to having > you on board again when circumstances permit. > > All the best from all of us, > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators – for the Internet Governance > Caucus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 25 10:46:35 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:46:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D775EEC801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by competition and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if it once was too expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those strategies succeed in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there is more wealth to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is no wealth, there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often associated with the reform and restructuring of universal service programs, making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more revenues which can be used to ameliorate poverty. > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Cc: Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review > > On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > Milton, > > > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no > > indirect) connection between the "most developed > infrastructure" or "the > > strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly > among the poorest > > and the least developed populations... > > > > There are in many cases statistical associations because > infrastructure and > > content industries support economic and social advance > among the alteady > > developed sections of those societies, but the reality is > very different on > > the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in > India where highly > > sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had > little or no > > impact on the bulk of the rural population. > > > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example > in South Africa > > where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or > of content is > > likely in fact to be an impediment to development by > restricting the > > opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support > > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not > > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced > infrastructure and > > content industries in that country. > > > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any > better is not > > something I want to argue in this context, but at least as > I see the SA > > situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more > competition) will > > lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and > have virtually no > > effect on the not connected. > > hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk > worldwide) might prove you wrong. > > http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc hitecture/ > > and an early implementation of it: > > http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do > > and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" > with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. > > I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public > sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! > > My original point in this thread was that African CS can actually DO > something instead of just talking about doing something (at the IGF). > > -- > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 25 10:49:32 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 07:49:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <187EFBC4FE314442AD7691BBDFC7FD4D@userPC> McTim, This technology looks cool and I would love to be proven wrong on this one... (and the problem with Telekom from what I could figure out wasn't that it was implementing bad policy directions from the government but rather that the government was implementing bad policies directions from Telekom... Maybe a new Minister of Communications in SA will get the order straightened around... Also, one of the severe limitations in relying on CS for achieving basic connectivity is the difficulty of scaling... The project quoted from the Shuttleworth site looks very interesting but as Shuttleworth and others well know moving from a successful CS (or small entrepreneur) project at the local level to any sort of national, regional or even significant urban/peri-urban/rural deployment requires vastly more financial and human resources (or the means to mobilize these at the local level) than any current CS structure is capable of... MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 1:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Milton, > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no > indirect) connection between the "most developed infrastructure" or > "the strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly among > the poorest and the least developed pop(ulations... > > There are in many cases statistical associations because > infrastructure and content industries support economic and social > advance among the alteady developed sections of those societies, but > the reality is very different on the ground as can be seen quite > directly for example in India where highly sophisticated > inftrastructure/content development has had little or no impact on > the bulk of the rural population. > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example in South > Africa where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or of > content is likely in fact to be an impediment to development by > restricting the opportunities for public sector intervention > precisely to support development among the 85% of the population > which is currently not effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite > advanced infrastructure and content industries in that country. > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any better is > not something I want to argue in this context, but at least as I see > the SA situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more > competition) will lead to a reduction in cost for the already > connected and have virtually no effect on the not connected. hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk worldwide) might prove you wrong. http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-architecture/ and an early implementation of it: http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! My original point in this thread was that African CS can actually DO something instead of just talking about doing something (at the IGF). -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 25 10:49:32 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 07:49:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Ed Felten proposes a three-strikes law for print Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:55 AM To: A2K Discussion List Cc: Jérémie Zimmermann Subject: [A2k] Ed Felten proposes a three-strikes law for print -- Often farcical extrapolation is the best way to put a point across. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/modest-proposal-three-strikes-p rint A Modest Proposal: Three-Strikes for Print By Ed Felten - Posted on May 13th, 2009 at 6:50 am Yesterday the French parliament adopted a proposal to create a "three-strikes" system that would kick people off the Internet if they are accused of copyright infringement three times. This is such a good idea that it should be applied to other media as well. Here is my modest proposal to extend three-strikes to the medium of print, that is, to words on paper. My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print. As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year. A few naysayers may argue that print bans might be hard to enforce, and that banning communication based on mere accusations of wrongdoing raises some minor issues of due process and free speech. But if those issues don't trouble us in the Internet setting, why should they trouble us here? Yes, if banned from using print, some students will be unable to do their school work, some adults will face minor inconvenience in their daily lives, and a few troublemakers will not be allowed to participate in -- or even listen to -- political debate. Maybe they'll think more carefully the next time, before allowing themselves to be accused of copyright infringement. In short, a three-strikes system is just as good an idea for print as it is for the Internet. Which country will be the first to adopt it? Once we have adopted three-strikes for print, we can move on to other media. Next on the list: three-strikes systems for sound waves, and light waves. These media are too important to leave unprotected. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -- Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part [ signature.asc of type application/pgp-signature deleted ] -- _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k !DSPAM:2676,4a1a9ecc25631770915242! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Mon May 25 11:26:28 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:26:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Example of online safety initiative Message-ID: <1243265188.3900.390.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear all As I am writing this from the CSTD WSIS follow-up session in Geneva, the ITU is presenting its 'child online protection' initiative being promoted under the rather appropriate acronym - COP. It reminded me to share an initiative of an APC member in South Africa, Women'sNet. Their approach to online safety is to empower users, in this case girls. It would be interesting to hear what people think of Women'sNet's approach. Those of you who are not familiar with South Africa might not know that mobile chat is incredibly popular - through a locally developed application called Mxit. This is because mobile chat (IM) is much cheaper than SMS. Best Anriette -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Sally-Jean Reply-to: "A general information sharing space for the APC Community." To: A general information sharing space for the APC Community. Subject: [APC Forum] Watch "Keep your Chats Exactly That!" tomorrow Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:51:48 +0200 Dear Partners Tomorrow we are launching our campaign for online and mobile safety! Speaking at the launch will be representatives from the South African Film and Publications Board, Media Monitoring Africa, as well as Love Life who will talk about their mobile social network called MYMsta. Women'sNet will talk about our work, and how we came up with this campaign. We will be streaming video clips live from a cellphone on: http://www.qik.com/sallyjean, and will be issuing a statement after the launch too! Please join us online, make comments and let us know what you think. The Launch starts at 10.30am (Johannesburg time!) See you in cyber space! Sally and the Women'sNet/Girl'sNet team: Faith, Eva, Lebo, Lerato, Keba, and Eunice ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Campaign Launch! ‘’Keep Your Chats Exactly That!’’* Girls’Net, a daughter project of Women’sNet has embarked on a campaign to promote safe and assertive use of phone chats and other forms of social networking tools. This campaign aims to empower young people to prevent them from becoming victims of harassment, bullying and violence when using the internet and cell phones. Additionally, we aim to help young people use these tools in affirmative ways to advocate for change on issues of concern to them. *We are inviting interested individuals, organisations, potential partners, collaborators, funders and promoters to join us in a discussion that will launch “keep your Chats Exactly That!” - a campaign to promote internet and mobile safety for young people. * *Discussion Topics for the day:* * What regulations exist in ICTs, particularly phone chats and internet in South Africa? * Cellphone Social networks: What do they say about dangers and safety? * Gender and Information and Communication Technologies – does gender matter in cyber space? *Launch Details: * Date: 15 may 2009 Where: Women’sNet, Civicus House, 31 Quinn Str. Newtown Johannesburg Time: 10h00 for 10h 30am- until 12h 30pm _*Please RSVP your attendance to Eva at *__*women at womensnet.og.za *_*by the 8*^*th* * of May * *for directions to Women'sNet http://www.womensnet.org.za/contact-us* *Background of the Campaign: * Through the “Keep your Chats Exactly That!” campaign, we seek to empower young people with information on how to assert themselves when confronted with harassment. This campaign, therefore serves to address violence experienced in internet and cellular phones by raising awareness and disseminating information. This will be done through distribution of stickers, fact sheets, posters and outreach to schools, learners, parents and NGOs. For further information and document on the concept, please see the Women’sNet website (_http://www.womensnet.org.za/node/863_). Girls’Net, as part of our “Keep your Chats Exactly That!” campaign, visited schools and discovered that many learners had been subject to bullying, sexual harassment and pornography. Some learners were exposed to, and interacted with, pornographic materials. The learners either viewed pornography from family/ friends/ relatives' phones or their own. They also reported viewing and sharing pornography they downloaded from the internet or received from their friends. Learners also reported sharing each other’s naked pictures. In addition, young people reported constant bullying, stalking and harassment whiles using cell phones. In focus group interviews we conducted when investigating the use of social networks, girls reported that they withdrew from mobile social networks because of sexual harassment. *About Girls'Net:* Girls'Net (_http://www.womensnet.org.za/girlsnet_) is a South African social and multi- media programme that gets girls involved in the use of ICTs for their own development. Girls'Net recognizes the significance of ICTs in the lives of girls and in their potential for development. -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 25 11:32:32 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:32:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard... I understand that the cost of yachts and Manhattan penthouses, (all with the latest in operating efficiences) has thanks to others with such blind faith, now collapsed but I'm not as yet seeing any benefits... Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from $50/mon. to $30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings are $30/mon. Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and stable profit) environment so that those who have sufficient income to pay $30/mon. for the Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and spend it in this way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of the "addiitonal revenues and economic benefits" that these investments generate...hence the closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating disparities between the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves of high tech First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies (such as South Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being among the majority population in South Africa for example, but the disparities -- to a considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing even faster. It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers that prevents people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the fact that they are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve their positions in the absence of directed public policy in support of those developments. My earlier point though which is rather different is that in the absence of a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or policy or some combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training, public access, appropriate content development, appropriate service design and so on--a community informatics--the simple introduction of "competition" has no chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path" exists between the benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"... MBG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA http://www.communityinformatics.net CA tel. +1-604-602-0624 SA cell -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by competition and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if it once was too expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those strategies succeed in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there is more wealth to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is no wealth, there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often associated with the reform and restructuring of universal service programs, making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more revenues which can be used to ameliorate poverty. > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Cc: Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review > > On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > Milton, > > > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no > > indirect) connection between the "most developed > infrastructure" or "the > > strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly > among the poorest > > and the least developed populations... > > > > There are in many cases statistical associations because > infrastructure and > > content industries support economic and social advance > among the alteady > > developed sections of those societies, but the reality is > very different on > > the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in > India where highly > > sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had > little or no > > impact on the bulk of the rural population. > > > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example > in South Africa > > where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or > of content is > > likely in fact to be an impediment to development by > restricting the > > opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support > > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not > > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced > infrastructure and > > content industries in that country. > > > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any > better is not > > something I want to argue in this context, but at least as > I see the SA > > situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more > competition) will > > lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and > have virtually no > > effect on the not connected. > > hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk > worldwide) might prove you wrong. > > http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc hitecture/ > > and an early implementation of it: > > http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do > > and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" > with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. > > I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public > sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! > > My original point in this thread was that African CS can actually DO > something instead of just talking about doing something (at the IGF). > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 25 11:33:05 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:33:05 +0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Secretariate presents summary to CSTD Message-ID: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> Participating in the CSTD in Geneva, Markus just presented the summary of developments of the IGF and prospects of the future. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 25 11:40:17 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:40:17 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF Secretariate presents summary to CSTD References: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719060@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Faoud is there already a draft resolution? w ________________________________ Von: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mo 25.05.2009 17:33 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] IGF Secretariate presents summary to CSTD Participating in the CSTD in Geneva, Markus just presented the summary of developments of the IGF and prospects of the future. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 25 11:51:00 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:51:00 +0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Secretariate presents summary to CSTD In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719060@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719060@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <701af9f70905250851u797e32eem83acbb5b4aa7e12@mail.gmail.com> No, its sort of a report back activity going on by various agencies and representatives. I don't think resolutions will be presented today? 2009/5/25 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Faoud > > is there already a draft resolution? > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mo 25.05.2009 17:33 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] IGF Secretariate presents summary to CSTD > > > > Participating in the CSTD in Geneva, Markus just presented the summary > of developments of the IGF and prospects of the future. > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Mon May 25 12:26:57 2009 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:26:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1AC6D1.7020101@itforchange.net> Day 1 featured presentation on WSIS progress and follow-ups, including by the UNSG, select countries and international organizations ... There was agreement from several quarters on Markus's assertion (he gave an update on the IGF) that the IGF is an innovation in MSP, the Deputy Secretary General of ITU mentioned that the IGF processes have been useful learning for them. From a developing country perspective, there were comments on the need for setting up national internet backbones and importance of local content... and that the current downturn was an opportunity to put this as a public infrastructure, accessible to all, rather than a threat. The Brazilian delegate was happy that EC had found its place (even if belated) at IGF ... and that he thought EC was more than 'cooperation amongst participants' as an end in itself, but a method to enable global public policy in this arena .... In her address as a part of the opening ceremony, Anriette stressed on the need to build internet broadband access and not believe that mobiles alone would fulfill this need. There are two 1/2 day panels tomorrow on WSIS follow-up... regards Guru Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Participating in the CSTD in Geneva, Markus just presented the summary > of developments of the IGF and prospects of the future. > -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98454 37730 www.ITforChange.net http://Public-Software.in http://India.IS-Watch.net http://IS-Watch.net http://content-commons.in *IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United Nations’ Economic and Social Council* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 25 16:05:49 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:05:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A88@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard... Michael. I can caricature people with the best of them. So you may as well try to engage with different viewpoints seriously, rather than dismissively, if only for self-protection purposes. > Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from $50/mon. to > $30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings are $30/mon. Indeed. And this proves what, exactly? If I can make any sense of your position, all you are proposing is that wealth be transferred to deliver service to people who can't afford its real cost. I say, fine, as an ameliorative measure, and it will and should happen insofar as a country can afford it. What you refuse to face is the issue of what a country can afford. How does a society gain the wealth to help people? Who will build the bulk of a society's infrastructure on a long-term, self-sustaining basis? Ameliorative measures are no substitute for the wealth-creating drivers of an entire economy. Government-sponsored wealth transfers can't happen until there is wealth there to transfer. Few government subsidy programs create wealth, they mostly redistribute it; and even then they have a budget constraint. They can't give everyone the benefits they want without taking the money to do it from someone else. To spend money on telecom service subsidies they have to not fund something else, and/or take more income away from people. (You do believe in budget constraints don't you? or do you think that capitalists just made that all up to prevent people from getting good things, out of the inherent meanness in their hearts?) How high should taxes be raised, Michael, to fund your pet projects at your desired level? (If you actually talk to the rural poor in the same developing countries I have visited you will find them complaining about the level of taxation.) What other do-gooder's pet projects won't get funded if yours are funded? It's all well and good to appear deeply committed to the eradication of poverty by asserting that all poor people should have things regardless of cost (even as you live in upper class conditions in a first-world country), but unless you can answer the hard trade-off questions it's little more than posturing. Are you asserting that an entire country's infrastructure is going to be built through static wealth transfers outside a market regime? If so, we part company. I suggest you take a look at a simple statistical comparison of penetration rates in countries with and without competition and liberalization. The disparities you speak of have gotten much, much better in the last 20 years, not worse as you assert. No, a liberalized market doesn't instantly deliver 100 Mb broadband to every African village. But it's gotten mobile service far, far deeper into those territories than the state monopoly ever did. Plus, I just have trouble grokking the logic behind an assertion that a policy is bad because it doesn't instantly rain down benefits that cost $50 a month on people who can only pay $10 a month. A policy that quadruples the level of access in a country in a decade is a pretty damn good policy. Unless you believe that no one should get anything unless everyone has it. Services and infrastructures COST MONEY to deliver, Michael, and unless you have some new method of generating the financial, physical and human resources to build them, you aren't helping much. > Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and stable profit) > environment so that those who have sufficient income to pay > $30/mon. for the > Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and > spend it in this > way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of > the "addiitonal > revenues and economic benefits" that these investments > generate...hence the > closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating > disparities between > the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves > of high tech > First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies > (such as South > Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being among the > majority population in South Africa for example, but the > disparities -- to a > considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing even faster. > > It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers > that prevents > people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the > fact that they > are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve > their positions in > the absence of directed public policy in support of those > developments. > > My earlier point though which is rather different is that in > the absence of > a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or > policy or some > combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training, > public access, > appropriate content development, appropriate service design > and so on--a > community informatics--the simple introduction of "competition" has no > chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path" > exists between the > benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"... > > MBG > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and > Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA > http://www.communityinformatics.net > CA tel. +1-604-602-0624 > SA cell > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM > To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by > competition > and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who > operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if > it once was too > expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions > obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose > geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely > Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which > benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his > assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the > opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those > strategies succeed > in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there > is more wealth > to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is > no wealth, > there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often > associated with the reform and restructuring of universal > service programs, > making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more > revenues which > can be used to ameliorate poverty. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > > Cc: Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review > > > > On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > > Milton, > > > > > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably > little or no > > > indirect) connection between the "most developed > > infrastructure" or "the > > > strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly > > among the poorest > > > and the least developed populations... > > > > > > There are in many cases statistical associations because > > infrastructure and > > > content industries support economic and social advance > > among the alteady > > > developed sections of those societies, but the reality is > > very different on > > > the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in > > India where highly > > > sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had > > little or no > > > impact on the bulk of the rural population. > > > > > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example > > in South Africa > > > where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or > > of content is > > > likely in fact to be an impediment to development by > > restricting the > > > opportunities for public sector intervention precisely > to support > > > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not > > > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced > > infrastructure and > > > content industries in that country. > > > > > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any > > better is not > > > something I want to argue in this context, but at least as > > I see the SA > > > situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more > > competition) will > > > lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and > > have virtually no > > > effect on the not connected. > > > > hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk > > worldwide) might prove you wrong. > > > > http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc > hitecture/ > > > > and an early implementation of it: > > > > http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do > > > > and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" > > with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. > > > > I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public > > sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! > > > > My original point in this thread was that African CS can > actually DO > > something instead of just talking about doing something (at > the IGF). > > > > -- > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon May 25 16:07:56 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:07:56 +1000 Subject: [governance] JPA In-Reply-To: <4A1A7579.3000107@apc.org> Message-ID: When I hear strong and respected voices such as Willie and APC, Bill Drake and Milton Mueller arguing for a continuation of the JPA with specific conditions, it is obvious to me that it will be difficult to get consensus on a statement to the DOC review. While I am inclined to agree with many of the comments, I cannot envisage that a continued JPA will solve any of these issues, and also believe that a continued JPA brings into question ICANN¹s legitimacy in the international arena. So I don¹t know. We have different opinions here on how to cure the problem. So let me say the following, speaking absolutely in a personal capacity here. The colonial era existed for a long time on the belief that countries and certain races were not mature enough to self govern. I see strong echoes of colonialism in suggesting that ICANN cannot solve its problems without the patronism of the US Government. I echo (as I did in Hyderabad) the opinion of Mahatma Ghandi to the British when they questioned the timing of an independence movement­ we would rather have our own bad governance that your good governance. We have chicken and the egg here - which comes first? While I think the international treaty is a good idea, to continue a JPA until we have one lessens the chance of one evolving. But if people wish, lets continue and look for middle ground. I would not argue for an extended JPA under any conditions. I would be prepared to argue for an immediate cessation of the JPA subject to ICANN agreeing to (taking up APC¹s points) - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical internet resources through an international treaty > - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. > ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines on > how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle, WSIS principles etc) * an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic regulator but not interfere in its operations) (and I would add embedding the principles referred to below) Is there a way forward along these lines? To me it would need to be absolutely clear that continuance of JPA until these arrangements are in place is not an option. Ian Peter On 25/05/09 8:39 PM, "Willie Currie" wrote: > Hi Ian > > In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA expiry on the > following lines: > > Q1: change the principle 'private' to 'multi-stakeholder' and propose WSIS > principles > Q2 say the ICANN model is flawed as it allows for arbitrary interventions by > the GAC to override its decision-making processess as in the .xxx case, does > not in its decision-making processes comply with the standards of an economic > regulator, confuses public policy regulation with commercial activities, lacks > proper accountability whether internal or external, lacks full international > legitimacy. ICANN can be internationalised as an economic regulator for the > DNS and the JPA allowed to expire after the following steps: > - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder > directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other > stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical > internet resources through an international treaty > - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. > ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines on > how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS principles etc) > - an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet > resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with the > private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and broad > parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic regulator but > not interfere in its operations) > Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has made progress on meeting some of these > steps but they are not sufficient in themselves as the overall problems > outlined in Q2 have not been met and can't be met within the current > governance arrangments for ICANN. > Q6: say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until theconditions > outlined under Q2 have been met. > > This conclusion is somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have argued > against the unilateral control of ICANN by one government. We have also been > hesitant about arguing for an international treaty but feel the sooner we face > up to this as a reality the better. We are worried about a black swan > blindsiding the system of managing critical internet resources to the > detriment of the internet as a whole and lack confidence in letting ICANN go > without there being a legitimate accountability mechanism in place. > > Willie > > > Ian Peter wrote: >> JPA >> >>> >>> There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the JPA ­ which >>> I think would be a good idea. Below is DOC¹s call for comments with some >>> suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until June 8 so we probably need to >>> get something decided fairly quickly if we are to respond. >>> >>> Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is that ICANN >>> needs to embed various principles in its operation. These are in by-laws but >>> that would appear to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN might be able >>> to suggest an appropriate mechanism for this. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> REQUEST FOR COMMENT: >>> >>> Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the >>> Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the >>> progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management >>> of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of >>> private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN >>> represents. >>> The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the >>> issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may >>> be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and >>> other empirical data that are not widely published should include >>> copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. >>> 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., >>> stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and >>> representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector >>> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If >>> so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's >>> existing processes and structures? >>> >>> IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM >>> PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN >>> >>> 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the >>> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. >>> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector >>> so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is >>> this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and >>> facilitate international participation in the coordination and >>> management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the >>> security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and >>> structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry >>> leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most >>> appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and >>> security of the Internet DNS? >>> >>> IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY >>> INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE >>> ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS >>> WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR >>> PARTICIPATION >>> >>> 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA >>> contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific >>> milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these >>> milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be >>> taken to successfully address them? >>> >>> >>> 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a >>> series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the >>> JPA. >>> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities >>> set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN >>> Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those >>> responsibilities included activities in the following categories: >>> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server >>> security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, >>> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and >>> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet >>> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If >>> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served >>> in these areas? >>> >>> 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. >>> That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to >>> increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, >>> accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, >>> stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced >>> competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns >>> expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been >>> successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the >>> community served in these areas? >>> >>> 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an >>> agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the >>> technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner >>> that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. >>> Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place >>> by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria >>> should be used to make that determination? >>> >>> IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS >>> TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. >>> >>> 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient >>> safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of >>> the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder >>> interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are >>> these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of >>> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what >>> additional safeguards should be put in place? >>> >>> THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO >>> BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO >>> EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. >>> >>> 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are >>> to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's >>> policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the >>> agreement. What should be included in this report? >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 25 16:19:46 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:19:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A1A7579.3000107@apc.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A8B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ian, Good post. Let me briefly take up your colonialism metaphor, because it is a strong one. Suppose that the British empire was about to grant India its "independence" but it had also saddled the Indians with an incumbent governance structure and an entrenched governing elite that was not in line with the wishes of the population. If by declaring independence and gaining recognition as an independent entity the British were merely delivering the state apparatus into the hands of this illegitimate elite, would you favor immediate or delayed independence? Perhaps a delay might alter the conditions of independence, e.g. providing for more democratic processes in selecting the leaders of the independent government, or a better constitution? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 4:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Willie Currie Subject: Re: [governance] JPA When I hear strong and respected voices such as Willie and APC, Bill Drake and Milton Mueller arguing for a continuation of the JPA with specific conditions, it is obvious to me that it will be difficult to get consensus on a statement to the DOC review. While I am inclined to agree with many of the comments, I cannot envisage that a continued JPA will solve any of these issues, and also believe that a continued JPA brings into question ICANN's legitimacy in the international arena. So I don't know. We have different opinions here on how to cure the problem. So let me say the following, speaking absolutely in a personal capacity here. The colonial era existed for a long time on the belief that countries and certain races were not mature enough to self govern. I see strong echoes of colonialism in suggesting that ICANN cannot solve its problems without the patronism of the US Government. I echo (as I did in Hyderabad) the opinion of Mahatma Ghandi to the British when they questioned the timing of an independence movement- we would rather have our own bad governance that your good governance. We have chicken and the egg here - which comes first? While I think the international treaty is a good idea, to continue a JPA until we have one lessens the chance of one evolving. But if people wish, lets continue and look for middle ground. I would not argue for an extended JPA under any conditions. I would be prepared to argue for an immediate cessation of the JPA subject to ICANN agreeing to (taking up APC's points) - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical internet resources through an international treaty - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle, WSIS principles etc) * an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic regulator but not interfere in its operations) (and I would add embedding the principles referred to below) Is there a way forward along these lines? To me it would need to be absolutely clear that continuance of JPA until these arrangements are in place is not an option. Ian Peter On 25/05/09 8:39 PM, "Willie Currie" wrote: Hi Ian In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA expiry on the following lines: Q1: change the principle 'private' to 'multi-stakeholder' and propose WSIS principles Q2 say the ICANN model is flawed as it allows for arbitrary interventions by the GAC to override its decision-making processess as in the .xxx case, does not in its decision-making processes comply with the standards of an economic regulator, confuses public policy regulation with commercial activities, lacks proper accountability whether internal or external, lacks full international legitimacy. ICANN can be internationalised as an economic regulator for the DNS and the JPA allowed to expire after the following steps: - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical internet resources through an international treaty - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS principles etc) - an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic regulator but not interfere in its operations) Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has made progress on meeting some of these steps but they are not sufficient in themselves as the overall problems outlined in Q2 have not been met and can't be met within the current governance arrangments for ICANN. Q6: say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until theconditions outlined under Q2 have been met. This conclusion is somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have argued against the unilateral control of ICANN by one government. We have also been hesitant about arguing for an international treaty but feel the sooner we face up to this as a reality the better. We are worried about a black swan blindsiding the system of managing critical internet resources to the detriment of the internet as a whole and lack confidence in letting ICANN go without there being a legitimate accountability mechanism in place. Willie Ian Peter wrote: JPA There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the JPA - which I think would be a good idea. Below is DOC's call for comments with some suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until June 8 so we probably need to get something decided fairly quickly if we are to respond. Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is that ICANN needs to embed various principles in its operation. These are in by-laws but that would appear to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN might be able to suggest an appropriate mechanism for this. Ian Peter REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN represents. The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's existing processes and structures? IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and security of the Internet DNS? IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be taken to successfully address them? 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA. Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories: security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served in these areas? 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served in these areas? 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used to make that determination? IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in place? THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the agreement. What should be included in this report? ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 25 17:07:44 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:07:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A88@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <01240F030EAD4814853C8204CF33763F@userPC> Milton, Basically your polemic comes down to -- only market based competition "creates wealth" -- and only wealth (i.e. investment) created in this way can provide the financial resources for infrastructure, enabling education and social programs etc.etc. Good question, but where exactly are the trillions of dollars coming from that are being used to patch over the gaping chasms that an irresponsible and ultimately totally irrational faith in the unfettered market has subjected on the world... One day there wasn't enough money to fill up a $100 mil deficit in the World Food Program and the next day, hey presto, the Fed and the BIS and the IMF or whoever can conjure up more money than has ever existed anywhere out of nothing to respond to some significant shortfalls in the spreadsheets of some totally utterly irresponsible bankers and other hangers on... If we are learning anything from the current global crisis it is that conventional i.e. free market/libertarian economics is a belief system like a lot of other belief systems and probably one that has rather less correspondence with reality than most. Where the money would come from, to answer your question, it would/could be created by policy fiat like all the rest only in this case it would serve rather more of a productive purpose than for example tossing it into pots to give million dollar bonues to "incentivize" folks to "solve" the problems that they were responsible for creating in the first place. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:06 PM To: 'Michael Gurstein'; 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard... Michael. I can caricature people with the best of them. So you may as well try to engage with different viewpoints seriously, rather than dismissively, if only for self-protection purposes. > Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from $50/mon. to > $30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings are $30/mon. Indeed. And this proves what, exactly? If I can make any sense of your position, all you are proposing is that wealth be transferred to deliver service to people who can't afford its real cost. I say, fine, as an ameliorative measure, and it will and should happen insofar as a country can afford it. What you refuse to face is the issue of what a country can afford. How does a society gain the wealth to help people? Who will build the bulk of a society's infrastructure on a long-term, self-sustaining basis? Ameliorative measures are no substitute for the wealth-creating drivers of an entire economy. Government-sponsored wealth transfers can't happen until there is wealth there to transfer. Few government subsidy programs create wealth, they mostly redistribute it; and even then they have a budget constraint. They can't give everyone the benefits they want without taking the money to do it from someone else. To spend money on telecom service subsidies they have to not fund something else, and/or take more income away from people. (You do believe in budget constraints don't you? or do you think that capitalists just made that all up to prevent people from getting good things, out of the inherent meanness in their hearts?) How high should taxes be raised, Michael, to fund your pet projects at your desired level? (If you actually talk to the rural poor in the same developing countries I have visited you will find them complaining about the level of taxation.) What other do-gooder's pet projects won't get funded if yours are funded? It's all well and good to appear deeply committed to the eradication of poverty by asserting that all poor people should have things regardless of cost (even as you live in upper class conditions in a first-world country), but unless you can answer the hard trade-off questions it's little more than posturing. Are you asserting that an entire country's infrastructure is going to be built through static wealth transfers outside a market regime? If so, we part company. I suggest you take a look at a simple statistical comparison of penetration rates in countries with and without competition and liberalization. The disparities you speak of have gotten much, much better in the last 20 years, not worse as you assert. No, a liberalized market doesn't instantly deliver 100 Mb broadband to every African village. But it's gotten mobile service far, far deeper into those territories than the state monopoly ever did. Plus, I just have trouble grokking the logic behind an assertion that a policy is bad because it doesn't instantly rain down benefits that cost $50 a month on people who can only pay $10 a month. A policy that quadruples the level of access in a country in a decade is a pretty damn good policy. Unless you believe that no one should get anything unless everyone has it. Services and infrastructures COST MONEY to deliver, Michael, and unless you have some new method of generating the financial, physical and human resources to build them, you aren't helping much. > Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and stable profit) > environment so that those who have sufficient income to pay $30/mon. > for the Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and > spend it in this > way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of > the "addiitonal > revenues and economic benefits" that these investments > generate...hence the > closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating > disparities between > the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves > of high tech > First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies > (such as South > Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being among the > majority population in South Africa for example, but the > disparities -- to a > considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing even faster. > > It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers > that prevents > people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the > fact that they > are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve > their positions in > the absence of directed public policy in support of those > developments. > > My earlier point though which is rather different is that in > the absence of > a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or > policy or some > combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training, > public access, > appropriate content development, appropriate service design > and so on--a > community informatics--the simple introduction of "competition" has no > chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path" > exists between the > benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"... > > MBG > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and > Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA > http://www.communityinformatics.net > CA tel. +1-604-602-0624 > SA cell > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM > To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by > competition > and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who > operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if > it once was too > expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions > obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose > geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely > Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which > benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his > assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the > opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those > strategies succeed > in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there > is more wealth > to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is > no wealth, > there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often > associated with the reform and restructuring of universal > service programs, > making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more > revenues which > can be used to ameliorate poverty. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > > Cc: Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review > > > > On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > > Milton, > > > > > > There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably > little or no > > > indirect) connection between the "most developed > > infrastructure" or "the > > > strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly > > among the poorest > > > and the least developed populations... > > > > > > There are in many cases statistical associations because > > infrastructure and > > > content industries support economic and social advance > > among the alteady > > > developed sections of those societies, but the reality is > > very different on > > > the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in > > India where highly > > > sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had > > little or no > > > impact on the bulk of the rural population. > > > > > > I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example > > in South Africa > > > where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or > > of content is > > > likely in fact to be an impediment to development by > > restricting the > > > opportunities for public sector intervention precisely > to support > > > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not > > > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced > > infrastructure and > > > content industries in that country. > > > > > > Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any > > better is not > > > something I want to argue in this context, but at least as > > I see the SA > > > situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more > > competition) will > > > lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and > > have virtually no > > > effect on the not connected. > > > > hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk > > worldwide) might prove you wrong. > > > > http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc > hitecture/ > > > > and an early implementation of it: > > > > http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do > > > > and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" > > with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. > > > > I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public > > sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! > > > > My original point in this thread was that African CS can > actually DO > > something instead of just talking about doing something (at > the IGF). > > > > -- > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon May 25 17:30:38 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:30:38 +1000 Subject: [governance] JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A8B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I think the point here is that it was for the Indians to decide, not the colonial masters. Indians took their independence, they were never ³granted² it and probably would have never been were it not for a strong movement. If there is an analogy here, I think ICANN should pursue a policy of satyagraha (non violent resistance) if the colonial powers decide to continue the JPA. ICANN should adopt an appropriate form that brings on board all stakeholders into such a strong coalition that eventually there will be no choice but to change. I can see Paul Twomey in his loin cloth already.... Ian Peter On 26/05/09 6:19 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > Ian, > Good post. > Let me briefly take up your colonialism metaphor, because it is a strong one. > Suppose that the British empire was about to grant India its "independence" > but it had also saddled the Indians with an incumbent governance structure and > an entrenched governing elite that was not in line with the wishes of the > population. If by declaring independence and gaining recognition as an > independent entity the British were merely delivering the state apparatus into > the hands of this illegitimate elite, would you favor immediate or delayed > independence? Perhaps a delay might alter the conditions of independence, e.g. > providing for more democratic processes in selecting the leaders of the > independent government, or a better constitution? > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> >> >> >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 4:08 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Willie Currie >> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA >> >> >> When I hear strong and respected voices such as Willie and APC, Bill Drake >> and Milton Mueller arguing for a continuation of the JPA with specific >> conditions, it is obvious to me that it will be difficult to get consensus >> on a statement to the DOC review. >> >> While I am inclined to agree with many of the comments, I cannot envisage >> that a continued JPA will solve any of these issues, and also believe that a >> continued JPA brings into question ICANN¹s legitimacy in the international >> arena. >> >> So I don¹t know. We have different opinions here on how to cure the problem. >> So let me say the following, speaking absolutely in a personal capacity >> here. >> >> The colonial era existed for a long time on the belief that countries and >> certain races were not mature enough to self govern. I see strong echoes of >> colonialism in suggesting that ICANN cannot solve its problems without the >> patronism of the US Government. I echo (as I did in Hyderabad) the opinion >> of Mahatma Ghandi to the British when they questioned the timing of an >> independence movement­ we would rather have our own bad governance that your >> good governance. >> >> We have chicken and the egg here - which comes first? While I think the >> international treaty is a good idea, to continue a JPA until we have one >> lessens the chance of one evolving. >> >> But if people wish, lets continue and look for middle ground. >> >> I would not argue for an extended JPA under any conditions. I would be >> prepared to argue for an immediate cessation of the JPA subject to ICANN >> agreeing to (taking up APC¹s points) >> >> - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a >> stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as >> other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing >> critical internet resources through an international treaty >> >>> - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. >>> ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines >>> on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle, WSIS principles etc) >> >> * an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet >> resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with >> the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and >> broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic >> regulator but not interfere in its operations) >> >> (and I would add embedding the principles referred to below) >> >> Is there a way forward along these lines? To me it would need to be >> absolutely clear that continuance of JPA until these arrangements are in >> place is not an option. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> On 25/05/09 8:39 PM, "Willie Currie" wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Ian >>> >>> In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA expiry on >>> the following lines: >>> >>> Q1: change the principle 'private' to 'multi-stakeholder' and propose WSIS >>> principles >>> Q2 say the ICANN model is flawed as it allows for arbitrary interventions >>> by the GAC to override its decision-making processess as in the .xxx case, >>> does not in its decision-making processes comply with the standards of an >>> economic regulator, confuses public policy regulation with commercial >>> activities, lacks proper accountability whether internal or external, lacks >>> full international legitimacy. ICANN can be internationalised as an >>> economic regulator for the DNS and the JPA allowed to expire after the >>> following steps: >>> - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a stakeholder >>> directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as other >>> stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing critical >>> internet resources through an international treaty >>> - separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g. >>> ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines >>> on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS principles etc) >>> - an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet >>> resources should be entered into between governments in consultation with >>> the private sector and civil society (that would set the principles and >>> broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international economic >>> regulator but not interfere in its operations) >>> Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has made progress on meeting some of these >>> steps but they are not sufficient in themselves as the overall problems >>> outlined in Q2 have not been met and can't be met within the current >>> governance arrangments for ICANN. >>> Q6: say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until >>> theconditions outlined under Q2 have been met. >>> >>> This conclusion is somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have argued >>> against the unilateral control of ICANN by one government. We have also >>> been hesitant about arguing for an international treaty but feel the sooner >>> we face up to this as a reality the better. We are worried about a black >>> swan blindsiding the system of managing critical internet resources to the >>> detriment of the internet as a whole and lack confidence in letting ICANN >>> go without there being a legitimate accountability mechanism in place. >>> >>> Willie >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> JPA >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the JPA ­ >>>>> which I think would be a good idea. Below is DOC¹s call for comments with >>>>> some suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until June 8 so we probably >>>>> need to get something decided fairly quickly if we are to respond. >>>>> >>>>> Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is that >>>>> ICANN needs to embed various principles in its operation. These are in >>>>> by-laws but that would appear to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN >>>>> might be able to suggest an appropriate mechanism for this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> REQUEST FOR COMMENT: >>>>> >>>>> Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the >>>>> Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the >>>>> progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management >>>>> of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of >>>>> private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN >>>>> represents. >>>>> The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the >>>>> issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may >>>>> be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and >>>>> other empirical data that are not widely published should include >>>>> copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. >>>>> 1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., >>>>> stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and >>>>> representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector >>>>> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If >>>>> so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's >>>>> existing processes and structures? >>>>> >>>>> IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM >>>>> PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN >>>>> >>>>> 2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the >>>>> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. >>>>> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector >>>>> so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is >>>>> this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and >>>>> facilitate international participation in the coordination and >>>>> management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the >>>>> security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and >>>>> structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry >>>>> leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most >>>>> appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and >>>>> security of the Internet DNS? >>>>> >>>>> IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY >>>>> INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE >>>>> ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, >>>>> AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR >>>>> PARTICIPATION >>>>> >>>>> 3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA >>>>> contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific >>>>> milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these >>>>> milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be >>>>> taken to successfully address them? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a >>>>> series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to >>>>> the JPA. >>>>> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities >>>>> set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN >>>>> Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those >>>>> responsibilities included activities in the following categories: >>>>> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server >>>>> security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, >>>>> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and >>>>> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet >>>>> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If >>>>> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served >>>>> in these areas? >>>>> >>>>> 5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. >>>>> That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to >>>>> increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, >>>>> accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, >>>>> stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced >>>>> competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns >>>>> expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been >>>>> successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the >>>>> community served in these areas? >>>>> >>>>> 6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an >>>>> agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the >>>>> technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner >>>>> that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. >>>>> Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place >>>>> by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria >>>>> should be used to make that determination? >>>>> >>>>> IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR >>>>> THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE. >>>>> >>>>> 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient >>>>> safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of >>>>> the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder >>>>> interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are >>>>> these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of >>>>> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what >>>>> additional safeguards should be put in place? >>>>> >>>>> THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY >>>>> NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE >>>>> CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. >>>>> >>>>> 8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are >>>>> to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's >>>>> policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the >>>>> agreement. What should be included in this report? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon May 25 19:11:51 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:11:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1B25B6.1060303@panos-ao.org> Dear friend McTim, all In my opinion, the African CS that's trying to get involved in the international IG debate, is also involved in IG initiatives on the continent. I'm not sure saying the contrary can be fully illustrated. I agree more African CS stakeholders should be involved in Af*'s works. Maybe Af*s should also make further progress towards inclusion of/dialogue with more broad/non technical African CS stakeholders? What is being done can be improved. You also have a lot of CS people involved for example in local ISOC chapters. (I don't know if African ISOCs are/can also be called Af*s). I think collaboration between stakeholders in Africa comes naturally in fact : you may wish to read this working paper I wrote and that was published in a doc by UNECA http://www.uneca.org/istd/documents/AfrCSOs_Speak.pdf (notably page 58) - not focused on IG though and in French. But we need to strengthen that collaboration between stakeholders on the continent. In particular the technical and business community need to support the other CS with regards to better mastering technical ICT/IG issues. This question is a bit discussed in this document that Mawaki Chango wrote "WSIS and Then? What Prospects and Roles for African Stakeholders in The Subsequent Internet Governance Processes?" that we have published in this working document http://www.cipaco.org/ancienne_versions/spip_v191/sources/OpeningthedebateonIGFinAfrica.pdf (see page 66/67 in particular)) - I'm mainly talking here as for West africa which I know best, but I guess the situation is more or less the same elsewhere. Another key problem is that the African CS doesn't benefit from the inputs of the African academia. If for example you watch this list, you'll see that "best" or most prolific contributors are people from the academia or with strong university background. In Africa we are far from this situation. Improving the involvement of the academia will also improve the involvement of African stakeholders and CS in policy making in general, at local, national and international levels. My two cents.. Ken L McTim a écrit : > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote: > >> Dear Ginger and Ian, >> Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till necessary >> for a most of developping countries specially in africa. >> > > This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. > > There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. > > When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead > of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less > time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) > African IG experience. That to me is a real pity. > > Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) > instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) > is beyond me. > > I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved > in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings. We need all the support we > can get. > There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some > other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own > initiatives when we easily can! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 22:20:45 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:50:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in this process? In-Reply-To: <01240F030EAD4814853C8204CF33763F@userPC> References: <01240F030EAD4814853C8204CF33763F@userPC> Message-ID: <4A1B51FD.4060306@gmail.com> This is a very interesting discussion thread--perhaps one of the best I have read on this list. However, I wonder if it is possible to bring the focus back to whether or how the IGF process can or should affect this whole situation. Is this possible? Has the IGF process helped? How could it? Do we have something concrete to say about the IGF process? Is there a way to evaluate (or review) the IGF? Thanks, Ginger Thanks, Ginger Michael Gurstein wrote: > Milton, > > Basically your polemic comes down to -- only market based competition > "creates wealth" -- and only wealth (i.e. investment) created in this way > can provide the financial resources for infrastructure, enabling education > and social programs etc.etc. > > Good question, but where exactly are the trillions of dollars coming from > that are being used to patch over the gaping chasms that an irresponsible > and ultimately totally irrational faith in the unfettered market has > subjected on the world... > > One day there wasn't enough money to fill up a $100 mil deficit in the World > Food Program and the next day, hey presto, the Fed and the BIS and the IMF > or whoever can conjure up more money than has ever existed anywhere out of > nothing to respond to some significant shortfalls in the spreadsheets of > some totally utterly irresponsible bankers and other hangers on... > > If we are learning anything from the current global crisis it is that > conventional i.e. free market/libertarian economics is a belief system like > a lot of other belief systems and probably one that has rather less > correspondence with reality than most. > > Where the money would come from, to answer your question, it would/could be > created by policy fiat like all the rest only in this case it would serve > rather more of a productive purpose than for example tossing it into pots to > give million dollar bonues to "incentivize" folks to "solve" the problems > that they were responsible for creating in the first place. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:06 PM > To: 'Michael Gurstein'; 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard... >> > > Michael. I can caricature people with the best of them. So you may as well > try to engage with different viewpoints seriously, rather than dismissively, > if only for self-protection purposes. > > >> Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from $50/mon. to >> $30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings are $30/mon. >> > > Indeed. And this proves what, exactly? > > If I can make any sense of your position, all you are proposing is that > wealth be transferred to deliver service to people who can't afford its real > cost. I say, fine, as an ameliorative measure, and it will and should happen > insofar as a country can afford it. What you refuse to face is the issue of > what a country can afford. How does a society gain the wealth to help > people? Who will build the bulk of a society's infrastructure on a > long-term, self-sustaining basis? Ameliorative measures are no substitute > for the wealth-creating drivers of an entire economy. Government-sponsored > wealth transfers can't happen until there is wealth there to transfer. > > Few government subsidy programs create wealth, they mostly redistribute it; > and even then they have a budget constraint. They can't give everyone the > benefits they want without taking the money to do it from someone else. To > spend money on telecom service subsidies they have to not fund something > else, and/or take more income away from people. (You do believe in budget > constraints don't you? or do you think that capitalists just made that all > up to prevent people from getting good things, out of the inherent meanness > in their hearts?) How high should taxes be raised, Michael, to fund your pet > projects at your desired level? (If you actually talk to the rural poor in > the same developing countries I have visited you will find them complaining > about the level of taxation.) What other do-gooder's pet projects won't get > funded if yours are funded? It's all well and good to appear deeply > committed to the eradication of poverty by asserting that all poor people > should have things regardless of cost (even as you live in upper class > conditions in a first-world country), but unless you can answer the hard > trade-off questions it's little more than posturing. > > Are you asserting that an entire country's infrastructure is going to be > built through static wealth transfers outside a market regime? If so, we > part company. I suggest you take a look at a simple statistical comparison > of penetration rates in countries with and without competition and > liberalization. The disparities you speak of have gotten much, much better > in the last 20 years, not worse as you assert. No, a liberalized market > doesn't instantly deliver 100 Mb broadband to every African village. But > it's gotten mobile service far, far deeper into those territories than the > state monopoly ever did. Plus, I just have trouble grokking the logic behind > an assertion that a policy is bad because it doesn't instantly rain down > benefits that cost $50 a month on people who can only pay $10 a month. A > policy that quadruples the level of access in a country in a decade is a > pretty damn good policy. Unless you believe that no one should get anything > unless everyone has it. > > Services and infrastructures COST MONEY to deliver, Michael, and unless you > have some new method of generating the financial, physical and human > resources to build them, you aren't helping much. > > > > >> Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and stable profit) >> environment so that those who have sufficient income to pay $30/mon. >> for the Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and >> spend it in this >> way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of >> the "addiitonal >> revenues and economic benefits" that these investments >> generate...hence the >> closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating >> disparities between >> the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves >> of high tech >> First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies >> (such as South >> Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being among the >> majority population in South Africa for example, but the >> disparities -- to a >> considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing even faster. >> >> It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers >> that prevents >> people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the >> fact that they >> are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve >> their positions in >> the absence of directed public policy in support of those >> developments. >> >> My earlier point though which is rather different is that in >> the absence of >> a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or >> policy or some >> combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training, >> public access, >> appropriate content development, appropriate service design >> and so on--a >> community informatics--the simple introduction of "competition" has no >> chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path" >> exists between the >> benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"... >> >> MBG >> >> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >> Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and >> Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA >> http://www.communityinformatics.net >> CA tel. +1-604-602-0624 >> SA cell >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM >> To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review >> >> When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by >> competition >> and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who >> operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if >> it once was too >> expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions >> obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose >> geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely >> Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which >> benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his >> assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the >> opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those >> strategies succeed >> in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there >> is more wealth >> to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is >> no wealth, >> there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often >> associated with the reform and restructuring of universal >> service programs, >> making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more >> revenues which >> can be used to ameliorate poverty. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review >>> >>> On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably >>>> >> little or no >> >>>> indirect) connection between the "most developed >>>> >>> infrastructure" or "the >>> >>>> strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly >>>> >>> among the poorest >>> >>>> and the least developed populations... >>>> >>>> There are in many cases statistical associations because >>>> >>> infrastructure and >>> >>>> content industries support economic and social advance >>>> >>> among the alteady >>> >>>> developed sections of those societies, but the reality is >>>> >>> very different on >>> >>>> the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in >>>> >>> India where highly >>> >>>> sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had >>>> >>> little or no >>> >>>> impact on the bulk of the rural population. >>>> >>>> I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example >>>> >>> in South Africa >>> >>>> where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or >>>> >>> of content is >>> >>>> likely in fact to be an impediment to development by >>>> >>> restricting the >>> >>>> opportunities for public sector intervention precisely >>>> >> to support >> >>>> development among the 85% of the population which is currently not >>>> effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced >>>> >>> infrastructure and >>> >>>> content industries in that country. >>>> >>>> Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any >>>> >>> better is not >>> >>>> something I want to argue in this context, but at least as >>>> >>> I see the SA >>> >>>> situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more >>>> >>> competition) will >>> >>>> lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and >>>> >>> have virtually no >>> >>>> effect on the not connected. >>>> >>> hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk >>> worldwide) might prove you wrong. >>> >>> http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc >>> >> hitecture/ >> >>> and an early implementation of it: >>> >>> http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do >>> >>> and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" >>> with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit. >>> >>> I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public >>> sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA! >>> >>> My original point in this thread was that African CS can >>> >> actually DO >> >>> something instead of just talking about doing something (at >>> >> the IGF). >> >>> -- >>> 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 From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue May 26 03:40:17 2009 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:40:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <4A1B25B6.1060303@panos-ao.org> References: <4A1B25B6.1060303@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <4A1B9CE1.3080800@panos-ao.org> This link mentioned below http://www.cipaco.org/ancienne_versions/spip_v191/sources/OpeningthedebateonIGFinAfrica.pdf has just been changed - the document is now here http://www.cipaco.org/sources/OpeningIGFdebateAfrica.pdf KL Ken Lohento a écrit : > Dear friend McTim, all > > In my opinion, the African CS that's trying to get involved in the > international IG debate, is also involved in IG initiatives on the > continent. I'm not sure saying the contrary can be fully illustrated. > I agree more African CS stakeholders should be involved in Af*'s > works. Maybe Af*s should also make further progress towards inclusion > of/dialogue with more broad/non technical African CS stakeholders? > What is being done can be improved. You also have a lot of CS people > involved for example in local ISOC chapters. (I don't know if African > ISOCs are/can also be called Af*s). I think collaboration between > stakeholders in Africa comes naturally in fact : you may wish to read > this working paper I wrote and that was published in a doc by UNECA > http://www.uneca.org/istd/documents/AfrCSOs_Speak.pdf (notably page > 58) - not focused on IG though and in French. But we need to > strengthen that collaboration between stakeholders on the continent. > In particular the technical and business community need to support the > other CS with regards to better mastering technical ICT/IG issues. > This question is a bit discussed in this document that Mawaki Chango > wrote "WSIS and Then? What Prospects and Roles for African > Stakeholders in The Subsequent Internet Governance Processes?" that we > have published in this working document > http://www.cipaco.org/ancienne_versions/spip_v191/sources/OpeningthedebateonIGFinAfrica.pdf > (see page 66/67 in particular)) - I'm mainly talking here as for West > africa which I know best, but I guess the situation is more or less > the same elsewhere. > > Another key problem is that the African CS doesn't benefit from the > inputs of the African academia. If for example you watch this list, > you'll see that "best" or most prolific contributors are people from > the academia or with strong university background. In Africa we are > far from this situation. Improving the involvement of the academia > will also improve the involvement of African stakeholders and CS in > policy making in general, at local, national and international levels. > > My two cents.. > > Ken L > > McTim a écrit : >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Ginger and Ian, >>> Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till >>> necessary >>> for a most of developping countries specially in africa. >>> >> >> This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why. >> >> There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support. >> >> When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead >> of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less >> time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+) >> African IG experience. That to me is a real pity. >> >> Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF) >> instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently) >> is beyond me. >> >> I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved >> in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings. We need all the support we >> can get. >> There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some >> other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own >> initiatives when we easily can! >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Tue May 26 06:32:49 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:32:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4A1AC6D1.7020101@itforchange.net> References: <701af9f70905250833p22998f36o48255237d41a1464@mail.gmail.com> <4A1AC6D1.7020101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1243333969.3900.538.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear all Attached is a copy of the opening session remarks that Guru refers to. I did not read the whole document. Anriette On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:26 +0200, Guru गुरु wrote: > Day 1 featured presentation on WSIS progress and follow-ups, including > by the UNSG, select countries and international organizations ... > > There was agreement from several quarters on Markus's assertion (he gave > an update on the IGF) that the IGF is an innovation in MSP, the Deputy > Secretary General of ITU mentioned that the IGF processes have been > useful learning for them. > > From a developing country perspective, there were comments on the need > for setting up national internet backbones and importance of local > content... and that the current downturn was an opportunity to put this > as a public infrastructure, accessible to all, rather than a threat. > > The Brazilian delegate was happy that EC had found its place (even if > belated) at IGF ... and that he thought EC was more than 'cooperation > amongst participants' as an end in itself, but a method to enable global > public policy in this arena .... > > In her address as a part of the opening ceremony, Anriette stressed on > the need to build internet broadband access and not believe that mobiles > alone would fulfill this need. > > There are two 1/2 day panels tomorrow on WSIS follow-up... > > regards > Guru > > > > > > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Participating in the CSTD in Geneva, Markus just presented the summary > > of developments of the IGF and prospects of the future. > > > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cstd_2009_APC_opening_remarks_25052009.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Tue May 26 11:28:42 2009 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:28:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Global Network Initiative seeks Executive Director Message-ID: <58762b1a0905260828r18056b2ci1e4b656691bdb868@mail.gmail.com> Please feel free to pass this along to people you think may be qualified and interested. Best, Rebecca http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/newsandevents/GNI_Executive_Director.php Global Network Initiative Seeks Executive Director Posted: May 21, 2009 The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is seeking an Executive Director to lead a new multi-stakeholder organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the human rights of freedom of expression and privacy in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. About the Global Network Initiative: The GNI was launched on October 29, 2008 when a diverse group of companies, human rights organizations, academics, investors, and technology leaders published new Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, accompanied by Implementation Guidelines and a Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. More information about the Initiative can be found at http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org. Executive Director Position: The Executive Director will report to GNI’s Board of Directors and will be responsible for key tasks and milestones associated with the establishment and operation of the organization. Key milestones include: globalizing and increasing GNI’s membership, developing a strategic plan in close consultation with the board, and making the GNI a leading voice in defending and promoting freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. Location: Washington, D.C.; flexible for the right candidate Responsibilities: Primary responsibilities of the Executive Director will include: Facilitating sound strategic planning to ensure the Initiative’s overall effectiveness, integrity, and sustainability; Directing all program components, including oversight and coordination of GNI subcommittees and work streams: Recruiting new participants (company and non-company) and managing membership; Conducting stakeholder outreach and identifying collaborative opportunities; Supporting the implementation of an accountability process for the organization; Managing and further developing a shared learning program, including the creation of relevant human rights resources; Acting as spokesperson for the organization and coordinating external communications, including representing the GNI in the media and at public speaking engagements; Collecting participant dues and managing resource development / external fundraising efforts; Managing the financial and administrative elements of the GNI; Maintaining or formulating operational policies, procedures, and protocols; Planning and supporting meetings of the Board and of the full membership; Planning and executing learning forums and other GNI events, including an annual learning conference; Recruiting, hiring, and supervising staff; Publishing annual reports on the Initiative’s progress; Undertaking other tasks contained in the GNI’s work plan or as directed by the Board. Qualifications: The Executive Director position is designed for candidates with significant relevant experience. An ideal candidate would have: A demonstrated commitment to the goals of the GNI; Experience in a start-up and/or nonprofit environment; Experience in successfully recruiting and expanding global membership among companies and civil society organizations; Directly relevant experience in the ICT sector; Experience with addressing the needs of a diverse, global group of stakeholders; Demonstrated leadership, management, and organizational skills; An entrepreneurial and collaborative working style; Seven or more years of relevant experience in human rights, corporate social responsibility and/or Internet and telecommunications policy; Superior verbal and written skills; An advanced degree in law, public policy, business or other relevant field; Fluency in English and at least one other language. This position represents a significant opportunity for the right individual to work with global leaders to shape the approach that ICT companies and their stakeholders will take to issues of freedom of expression and privacy in years to come. Compensation: Compensation will be commensurate with experience, and is competitive with public interest and not for profit pay scales. To Apply: Please email a cover letter explaining your interest and a resume or curriculum vitae to info at globalnetworkinitiative.org (Subject line: “Executive Director Position”). Deadline: July 31, 2009. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis. The Global Network Initiative is an equal opportunity employer, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual or gender orientation, religion or physical ability. -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong USA: +1-617-939-3493 | HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Tue May 26 12:18:14 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:18:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF review In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A88@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A88@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B735CAD-5174-40EA-B46D-CD10364697AC@telus.net> On 25-May-09, at 1:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Michael. I can caricature people with the best of them. So you may > as well try to engage with different viewpoints seriously, rather > than dismissively, if only for self-protection > purposes. .................. Services and infrastructures COST > MONEY to deliver, Michael, and unless you have some new method of > generating the financial, physical and human resources to build > them, you aren't helping much. The first statement is definitely supported by the second, thus demonstrating how difficult it is to find the right balance in admonition (see: John, Chapter 8, Verse 7). Perhaps Ginger Paque's gentle questions are a better approach than tit for tat? > On 25-May-09, at 7:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> I wonder if it is possible to bring the focus back to whether or >> how the IGF process can or should affect this whole situation. Is >> this possible? Has the IGF process helped? How could it? Do we >> have something concrete to say about the IGF process? Is there a >> way to evaluate (or review) the IGF? Actually, I don't see how noting that actions COST MONEY is all that helpful either. Maybe it's a more useful starting point to assume there's always some money somewhere. So what's really at issue in decision-making is the set of assumptions about how it will be spent. I too am not convinced that the business sector is the sole source of value, even of economic value. I am convinced that an individual who connects in a context of mutual understanding generates value, even economic value. Here are some things I've learned about shaping development assumptions and "generating the financial, physical and human resources" to "build infrastructure," ... and some thoughts on how they might connect to an IGF evaluation process. First: There is a chicken and egg relationship between cultural shifts and specific actions based on awareness of the new potentials for development they unleash. An example of a significant cultural shift with feedback development implications is what we now know about educating women: "We believe that long-term cultural shifts are important in bringing greater equality between men and women, but that both basic investment in human development in poorer nations, and structural policy reforms designed to reduce sex discrimination and expand opportunities for woman, can accelerate the pace of change in the lives of men and women." (Ingelhart and Norris. Rising tide: gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press, 2003. 163). I also like Hans Rosling's use of data to show that social change comes before economic change, for example that development works much faster if you are healthy first than if you are wealthy first (see Hans Rosling: Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen. TED, posted June 2006. http:// www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92). Rosling states that, if we are to avoid pre-conceived ideas of what's happening, "The improvement of the world must be highly contexturalized." IGF evaluation implication: Given that the Internet is a symptom of a cultural shift towards ontologies of autonomy and self- organization, we could ask - Has the IGF been an effective forum for dialogue about how that particular cultural shift supports positive impacts on development? Second: Although capacity is an emergent property and therefore the relation of cause and effect is illusive, it is better to focus on capacity to change behaviour than on the creation of wealth. Capacity is defined as, "that emergent combination of individual competencies and collective capabilities that enables a human system to create value." (Heather Baser and Peter Morgan. Capacity, Change and Performance. Study Report. European Centre for Development Policy Management, Discussion Paper No 59B, April 2008. 34). IGF evaluation implication: The elements of capacity identified by Baser and Morgan are entirely relevant to an assessment of IGF's effectiveness and they include the capability to: - commit and engage - carry out technical, service delivery and logistical tasks - relate and attract - adapt and self-renew - balance diversity and coherence But for me, the particular "human system" that should be central to IGF's dialogue and its capacity to engage and to learn and to change behaviour would be governance stated as e-governance. I define e- governance as "the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power by various levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." We should ask - Has the IGF process (and WSIS for that matter) advanced the definition and therefore awareness of what e-governance and the information society actually is? Third: Economies self-organize around beliefs about their components. Their "realities" are situational and unpredictable. For example: “An economy is not made of molecules whose behaviour is subject to the laws of physics, but rather of human beings who are themselves thinking about the future and whose behaviour may be influenced by the forecasts that they or others make.” Ben Bernanke, Board Chief, US Federal Reserve. Speech to graduating class, Boston College Law School, May 22/09 IGF evaluation implication: I'm going to leave that one open for others to think about, and finish with an anecdote. Years ago when Canada's national debt was enormous, I once (only once) went to a dinner party where the participants included six economists. After dinner, I asked a question out of my own ignorance - Given that 75% of Canada's national debt was then owned by Canadians, from a macro- economic point of view was that a liability or and asset? When my wife and I left the party about an hour later, the economists were still screaming at each other! GG____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue May 26 14:21:05 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:21:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in this process? In-Reply-To: <4A1B51FD.4060306@gmail.com> References: <01240F030EAD4814853C8204CF33763F@userPC> <4A1B51FD.4060306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B22097A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> The short answer, Ginger, is that our discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the IGF process. So I'll cut it short... Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:21 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in > this process? > > This is a very interesting discussion thread--perhaps one of > the best I > have read on this list. However, I wonder if it is possible > to bring the > focus back to whether or how the IGF process can or should > affect this > whole situation. Is this possible? Has the IGF process > helped? How could > it? Do we have something concrete to say about the IGF > process? Is there > a way to evaluate (or review) the IG